The way men today feel around children

TubeCrush : Another sexist double-standard

Male Tube passsengers beware: Flirty females are using their smartphones to capture the dishiest of the Underground's two million daily commuters, and uploading the unsuspecting men onto hit website TubeCrush.net.

Except they're not being 'flirty' at all. They are being sneeky, cowardly and a little bit creepy: taking photos of the men on the tube without their knowing or their permission. A clear invasion of privacy. No doubt years of consuming gossip magazines has 'normalised' the idea amongst these women that other people don't deserve privacy. And by browsing or sending photos into this website - where a readership of women (and no doubt gay men) can comment on the photos - they are further normalising the idea that men can be photographed without their knowledge or permission, have the photos published online where they are to be commented on by all.

'Nevermind', you might think, 'I'm sure that there's an exact equivalent website where men can shoot photos of women, unawares, and post them up for comment.'

err, only half right:

Tube Chicks has no rating system, and they only publish photos which are uploaded by the women themselves, or in which the woman has deliberately posed for the photo or given her permission.

In other words: men's privacy is being eroded by that of women is being upheld.

But what will men do about it? Sweet FA, as 99.9% of men are now total submissive bitches who meeky whine "How high madam?" when commanded to 'Jump!'

Why is it alright for women to be sexist about men?

Giles Coren: Why is it alright for women to be sexiest about men?

Tory MP blasts 'obnoxious feminist bigots'

Tory MP blasts 'obnoxious feminist bigots' and says men get a raw deal

Dominic Raab has stuck his neck out here in order to stand up for YOU as a man. You should show him your support by dropping him a quick email

Also, see this follow up piece in the Telegraph.

Feminism? Forget it sisters

A study published this week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has found that men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together.

Anonymity for men accused of rape

Defendants in rape cases will now be granted anonymity under new rules set out in today's Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition document.

Feminist BS on TED?

Feminist Eve Ensler's talk on TED sparks debate in the comments section

I didn't watch the talk, but it never ceases to amaze me how feminists and the media are so successfully able to brainwash people into thinking that there is more violence against women than against men. I suppose the way they have done it is to blind people to any alternative way of thinking about the sex of victims of violence other than male Vs Female.

So, people think of sex and violence either as men being violent against women, or women being violent against men. Because most people feel naturally more protective towards women than men, and because there is a given assumption that a man will always be able to defend himself against a woman. What this blinds people to is the far larger problem of male on male violence.

We will never move towards peace on earth until the issue of male on male violence is addressed, and feminism, by hiding the issue, and by whipping up hatred against men is making it worse, not better.

Harman calls for more men to be jailed for rape

she has chosen a human rights campaigner who has backed the idea of setting targets for numbers of men brought to court on rape charges.

The feminists have successfully convinced the public that a large percentage of rapists are not even making it into court, when all we can really say is that a large percentage of those ACCUSED of rape are not making it into court. There is a big difference. And, now, if you are unlucky enough to find yourself accused of rape, the police are going to be strongly motivated to get you into court and prosecute you, and NOT simply to discover 'The Truth'.

The Peter Pan Generation

Apparently, a staggering one in three men aged between 20 and 40 is still living with his parents.

Another talentless female hack writing a hateful article about young men.

Curious, isn't it, that such women think its their business what these young men's private living arrangements are. Would she get away with writing an article about it being unhealthy for gay people to live together? Of course not, yet I'm sure you could make a perfectly good case for attacking the gay lifestyle (I'm not against people being gay, but to play devil's advocate you could say that they are way more promiscuous than straight married couples, are more prone to domestic violence in the case of lesbians, and more prone to paedophilia in the case of gay men). We accept that people's own living arrangements are their own business, but when it comes to young men, we are apparently open-game for abuse. Why?

Well, of course the answer is that the REAL issue is that women - whilst reveling in excessive freedoms - want to hold men down to as many responsibilities as possible. They want to act like licentious sluts when they are young, then - at a timetable of THEIR chosing - they want men to line up to commit to them, pay a mortgage, give them children and support them etc. That this is increasingly hard to find really pisses them off.

This also gets right to the heart of why more young women than men live alone. Think about these factors:

(1) For starters, many of the young women who live in their own place are single mothers whose home comes courtesy of the taxpayer (and remember that men contribute more to the tax-pot than do women, yet do we ever get thanked for that??!).

(2) In which case are you able to exert more energy quickly: when you are running a sprint or a marathon? Many women look upon their working life more as a sprint - they will work during their 20s, and early 30s, but then hope to 'retire' to motherhood and let a man support them and pay the mortgage - whereas men realise that they are locked in to running the marathon. And with new economic realities, its dawning on men that they may have to work until they are 70 before they can afford to retire. Why not pace yourself?

(3) Now, baring in mind that men are more likely to be planning for a 50 year career, whereas women are more likely to be planning for a 15 year one (or at least for 15 years before having a nice rest), many men are looking quite critically at this situation and viewing it as wage slavery. Quite honestly, the whole pattern of expecting everyone to work for decades just to pay off a huge mortgage, does need to be seriously questioned. Is working your life away at a job you may hate, just to make the bank lots of money, and to keep a woman in a life of comfort, really the pinnacle of ambition for men? It wouldn't be so bad if a house was a good investment idea, but I'm not so sure it is for many men. Look at the reality: many men will work for most of their life just to afford a mortgage, they finally pay it off around the age they retire, by which time they only have about 10 or 20 (if they are lucky) years left, then when they are gone (and when their wife is gone) the property is sold, and the proceeds divided up amongst the relatives. But this is not even, usually, a passing of true wealth down to your children, as, after taxes, and after all the close relatives have had their share, each share doesn't usually amount to that much. And then its soon spent. So you'll have spent most of your life's energies working to build up something (an investment in a house) which is pretty much just scattered into the wind upon your death. But even asside from that, I don't think putting all your money into buying a property is such a wise move. Isn't it a fundamental of good financial planning that you should spread your investments; spread the risks? A house is also only a place to live: its not an asset that can make you endless money (yes you can re-mortgage, but you still need to pay the house-taxes, and pay the interest on the mortgage. Yes you can sell the house, but you still need to live SOMEWHERE). Equally, upon divorce, men can forceably loose their house, even if they paid for it all. I think men are increasingly questioning all this. Its not a model that will be seen as desirable or sustainable for much longer.

(4) What advantages of living alone are there for young women Vs for young men? I think the primary one is that it frees up your ability to socialise and sleep around. I would argue that MOST (maybe 70%) of young women in their 20s are highly promiscuous, or at least heavy socialisers/party-goers, whereas MOST (again, maybe 70%) of young men in their 20s are less able to be promiscuous. Young women in the west today are revelling in their sexual licentiousness, but of course they don't want daddy to know how often they pick up the latest thug from the local nightclub and sleep with him. This is a hidden reason, I believe, for why young women are so eager to have their own place. Its nothing to do with them being more 'responsible' than young men. For example, I believe figures have shown that young men are more likely than young women to have a pension plan. But when a young man is not participating in this endless socialising lifestyle, hes looked upon as a looser. Yet who is really being more healthy, and more responsible?

(5) Once you are committed to a mortgage, and to a marriage, a man's freedom to explore what he wants to spend his life doing is diminished. Now, I think this freedom needs to be extended to an older age than it used to, because deciding who you are and what you want to do with your life has become a more complex and open question. A parrallel can be seen in the post-war baby boomer generation. In the 50s and 60s a whole new life-stage emerged: the teenager. This group had its own culture, considerable spending power, exercised greater creative freedoms of expressions and really annoyed the older generations. We are seeing the same thing happening now, with the creation of a whole new life-stage, maybe occuring in the 20s and 30s - lets call it the Peter Pan generation. Interestingly, whereas this generation, like the teenager, annoyed the oldies, the Peter Pan stage is more of a male phenomenon (I would ague that single women in their 20s/30s are more akin to the teenager, being more focused on peer-group socialising, rather than the Peter Pan stage, which is more about following your personal interests). Whilst teenagers like to make themselves distinct from their parents generation, they have a remarkable tendency to want to conform to their peer-group. In contrast, I will argue that the central imperative of the Peter Pan stage of life is to discover what is UNIQUE about you, in order that you can make the most of your life. In an age when - thanks to increased international competition, and working women - its getting harder for the working man to make a comfortable living, its important to identify your talents. This also comes out of the fact that men today are more likely to make their living from their mental and creative talents than through physical work. In essence, there are strong pressures on men to develop their minds, and stand out from the crowd. Now, we see a parallel to the Peter Pan stage in nature: the more intelligent a species is, the longer it spends in a 'childhood stage', characterised by spending time with its parents, and engaging in 'play'. Play is a vitally important activity, that can develop creativity, intelligence and self-awareness. It allows you to try out different ideas in a risk-free environment. Its also, interestingly, an activity engaged in more by men than women (the parallel in women is, I suppose, socialising). In an information age, when its imperative for men to develop their minds, creativity and discover their unique talents, this Peter Pan stage is essential. Most men simply DO NOT know at age 18 who they are, what their talents are, and how they should best employ those talents. And, remember, the working life for most is now going to be until age 70.

I will make a prediction that tomorrow's new industries and new wealth will be disproportionately created by men who have gone through the Peter Pan stage: those who didn't rush to commit to a mortgage and marriage at age 18, but instead experienced this stage of 'adult play'.

Of course, there can be a fine line between adult play, and endless drifting through life. That can be the 'dark side' of this stage. Nevertheless, young men are being stereotyped more as drifters and the positive examples are ignored.

Another interesting thing about adult play is that it really annoys women, as well as many older men. Women will snidely roll their eyes and mutter about 'boys with toys'. Women don't understand it, and feel it is not serving their interests, so they want to denigrate it and shame the men who engage in it. I think the older men are dismissive of it through jealousy. Many of these men became locked-in to traditional responsibilities early in life, and secretly wish they had the opportunities of today's younger men.

Many such men also get dismissed as nerds. The men who prefer to spend Friday night indoors, painting models or playing dungeons and dragons. The subtext here is again that they aren't servicing women's interests. They aren't playing the socialising game. They aren't lining up to commit their life's energies to making a woman comfortable.

Theres also something particularly nasty about women, and older men who've happily sat back and watched the destruction of young men's ability to securely marry, work and buy a house without fear of loosing it all,,,, then hurl abuse at these young men for not jumping in, like lemmings! They are akin to people who break a contract, yet expect the other party to follow it to the letter. In the traditional society, younger men faced greater responsibilities and physical hardships, yet these were counterbalanced by social structures which supported men and placed them under fewer PSYCHOLOGICAL pressures. For example, in the traditional type of society, a shy or average-looking man will find it easier to find a wife, as there are rules and rituals for dating, and women will place more value on finding a decent man, than in flexing their sexual powers to endlessly socialise and sleep around. This was the old social contract: "Young men," cried the women and the older men, "please marry a woman and work to support the family, and in turn we will enshrine in the law and in the culture a support for your role as father, and we will ensure you have the rights to keep and enjoy the fruits of your labors". But you'd have to be living in a cave for the last 20 years not to see that women have ripped up their copy of the contract! Yet the women and the older men still want men to stick to every word of their copy! Of course they do, there are big vested interests at stake here, not least of which are women's dream to 'retire' in their 30s and let a man pay for them. If this wasn't so sick, it would almost be funny!

This is the fundamental flaw in feminist thinking. They assumed that they could foist changes upon society, yet men would still keep on producing the 'goodies' (the willingness to commit, the willingness to financially support them). But men too have changed in response, and this drives old hags, like the journalist above, into fits of rage! And that has to be a good thing.

So, perhaps Peter Pan himself should become a symbol for this new social movement, and for the men's rights movement in general.


I will finish off by archiving some of the men's comments posted on the story linked to at the beginning:

30 and still live at home and heres why.

1) Seen many friends wives/Girlfriends up to no good with other men out on the town while the other half is working late in a factory to pay the bills.

2) When the relationship goes down the pan its always the man who gets hammered financially and gets no say in child's access rights.

3) That stunning 20 year old most friends settled down with is now 30 old slob in tracksuit bottoms after 10 years of takeaways and trash TV

4) Most women will throw themselves at the local alpha male who promptly chucks them 2 weeks later (knowing full well hes done it to every other woman) then complains how all men are @#$%

5) Most women have a totally unrealistic impression of men (and life in general) after a diet of chick flicks/ sex and the city

6) Talk to the average woman in a bar and all you get is YOU BUYING ME A DRINK THEN OR WOT!!!

7) Money obsessed career women

No thanks I will stay at home.......free and single

~~~~~~

Perhaps men see more to life that useless women do? Women are obsessed with money and clothes. They see a house as "their entitlement" even if some poor bloke happens to have to be the one to buy it. Why would any man with a brain even go near a woman today? We are taxed to death to pay for female healthcare, funding ther vile stinking children and their endless time off work.

As anothe commetator said above, men create everything in scoiety. I'd challenge wmen to try to go for a day without using ANYTHING invented or designed by a man. Oh dear ladies even your bed it probably built by a man. No electricity, gas, car, food and so on.

I keep asking myself what use are women? I havent' found an answer yet other than bad sex.

Luckily my house and my pension (that's left of it thanks to the robbing feminists in the Liebour party) will be mine and mine alone.

~~~~~~

And yet its the 'feeble, infantile & feckless' men who seem to do most of the heavy work in society, who make up the majority of the military and generally take most of the physical risks. Who designed your laptop, Liz? That would be a man (probably quite a nerdy one who you'd hold in contempt, much like those longhairs from the 70s who built the early Internet) What about your car? Who builds the jumbo jets you fly round on? Your attitude is that men should be beasts of burden and insulted if they don't do your bidding - words just fail me.

~~~~~~

"Young women seem to manage perfectly well out on their own." - yes, usually with the help of their boyfriends, the law, their looks and PC hiring policies...

~~~~~~

The male pill cometh?

A male contraceptive injection has proved highly effective in a large study of more than 1,000 men.

Testosterone: Hormone of the Gods?

Testosterone has a bad reputation. Its public image is always linked to the idea of dumb aggression, to the caveman. But this is misleading.

Satoshi Kanazawa at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, studied the biographies of 280 scientists and plotted their intellectual achievements against their ages. He discovered something extremely revealing: the curves of age-achievement in scientists was not only repeated in jazz musicians, painters and authors, but mirrored the curves of age-criminal activity in criminals. Furthermore, both criminal activity and intellectual achievement seemed to drop off when the scientist or crock got married and started a family.

Interesting, don’t you think?

Criminal and high-level intellectual activity have the same underlying motor according to Kanazawa: testosterone.

This would also explain why most criminal and high level intellectual activities are carried out by the male of the species. Furthermore, it is mainly the unmarried male, and males between certain ages who comprise the greatest number of criminals and intellectual pioneers.

Testosterone is a hormone that males produce in far greater quantity than females. It begins production while the individual is still in the womb, and effects brain development. Testosterone levels tend to peak in the early twenties, and by middle age drop off dramatically.

Although women also have testosterone, men have far more. The increased amounts of testosterone in men accounts for the onset of their different physical and mental developments. These differences are not caused by socialisation as feminists have argued. A neat way of demonstrating this is to look at 'trans-gender' women: i.e. people who were born girls but always strongly identified more as a boy to such an extent that as a young adult they decide to use drugs and surgery to become a man (or as near to a man as they can get).

For example, Ethan Daniel decided to undergo a physical transition into becoming a man. Here are just a few photos from Ethan's website that show the physical effects of taking testosterone:

(despite the longer haircut in the second photo-sets, the effects of testosterone can be clearly seen. The complete sets of photos can be viewed here)

These are some of the mental changes that Ethan documents throughout her/his course of taking testosterone:

After 1 month: "I've found it much, much harder to be as patient as I've always been. Patience is something that is very important to me so I've found this difficult to deal with. I find I need to sometimes just stop and take a 10 second breather so I can continue being patient, which is a foreign feeling to me."

After 2 months: "I don't feel that I've gotten more aggressive, but I have noticed that it's much more difficult for me to just let something go. Perhaps it's an aggressive or impatient impulse, but it's not like I have to catch it or else it would escalate. The impulse is there (for example, to talk before I think in an argument), but it's not like I would start yelling or cursing if I wasn't aware the impulse. It's just been harder to let things go that in the past I would have just sucked up and gone on with my life. "

After 3 months: "It's been much harder to notice the little subtleties that I once noticed. I've found myself much more methodical and more withdrawn from socializing with perfect strangers. For example, I'd much rather be in a quite library putting books in order than helping customers at a video game store. I've always had this personality, but it's definitely more intense now. Yet, at the same time, when I do interact with perfect strangers, I do so in a different, more confident way. "

After 6 months: "I think the biggest mentality change I have noticed overall is my style of arguing. I hesitate to say that I'm more aggressive, because I don't find myself more quick to anger or more willing to get in an argument. Rather, I feel like I'm more of an active arguer, instead of a passive one. For example, I used to just keep my mouth shut and take whatever someone was saying to me. But now, I'm much more active in that it's easier to say whatever I'm thinking. It's much harder to remember to take that split second before I open my mouth to think is it a good idea to say this or not? or what is going to be the reaction I get from this statement? Instead, I'll just spit it out (and many times regret it). In a way, it's really relieving, because I feel like I'm letting out the emotions I've always suppressed, but in another way, it has major consequences on my relations with the people I'm arguing with. I'm working on it, and I have a feeling I will be for the rest of my life. "

Now, feminists would argue that any reported mental differences in men and women are the result of how they were raised (and, bizarrely, some feminists have even argued that physical differences between men and women are 'socially constructed'). Yet the changes described above clearly happened due to the testosterone, and NOT Ethan's upbringing, even despite the fact that Ethan already identified more as a male than a female. The effects of testosterone go beyond social influence.

High levels of testosterone have been reported to be correlated with dominant behaviour. This dominance does not necessarily express itself aggressively, it is more of a general competitive response. Also, interestingly, the relationship between testosterone levels and behaviour works both ways: taking part in competitive activity can raise levels of testosterone; furthermore, winning can increase it, losing can make it decrease.

Kanazawa’s paper is not absolute proof that testosterone is the key driver of exceptional male behaviour, but it is an elegant and persuasive argument. Should it really be such a surprise that males have historically had a monopoly on both criminal activity and genius-level accomplishments? Are we really to believe that this is all a co-incidence, and the true reason for male behaviour is the ‘Patriarchy’, as feminists and political correctoids would have us believe? As Camille Paglia writes:

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials. But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper. Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures. I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. . . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

A related area to testosterone’s drive for dominance is the sex-drive.

Sex-drive is an elusive concept. It is hard to measure because it can only really be objectively measured by activity (i.e. amount of sexual activity one indulges in). However, this measurement is a vector. A vector is a combination of two factors (in this case: opportunity to have sex + drive to have sex; or lack of willpower to refrain from sex x drive to have sex) therefore we cannot resolve out these two factors and determine whether the person has a high sex drive or merely has lots of opportunities to have sex OR a low willpower to resist their drive.

Nevertheless, even if we can’t always measure the sex-drive of a person objectively, that does not mean it doesn’t exist. And sometimes things that one cannot measure objectively can simply be observed or perceived through common sense. Men certainly, at least historically, have had a greater expression of sex drive than women. Particularly young men, who are often in a frenzy to sleep with as many females as possible.

Sexual desire – like water – can be managed and channelled, but it is much harder to eliminate. Rather, you should seek to give it other channels of expression.

Maybe sex-drive is another way to measure achievement, or rather the sublimation of sex drive into purposeful goal-driven behaviour.

Leaders are readers, and one book stands out more than any other in history as a bible of the wealthy: ‘Think and grow rich’ by Napoleon Hill.

Mr Hill spent years studying the rich and working out what made them that way. He then wrote many books on the subject, of which the most famous is ‘Think and grow rich’. Chapter 10 of the book is entitled ‘The mystery of sex transmutation’.

Here are a few interesting quotations from this chapter:

“Destroy the sex glands, whether in man or beast, and you have removed the major source of action. For proof of this, observe what happens to any animal after it has been castrated. A bull becomes as docile as a cow.”

“There has never been , and never will be a great leader, builder, or artist lacking in this driving force of sex.”

“A teacher who has trained and directed the efforts of more than 30,000 salespeople, made the astounding discovery that highly sexed men are the most efficient salesmen. The explanation is, that the factor of personality known as “personal magnetism” is nothing more nor less than sex energy.”

And here is the most important quote:

“I have discovered, from the analysis of over 25,000 people, that men who succeed in an outstanding way, seldom do so before the age of forty, and more often they do not strike their real pace until they are well beyond the age of fifty.

The major reason why the majority of men who succeed do not begin to do so before the age of forty to fifty is their tendency to dissipate their energies through over-indulgence in physical expression of the emotion of sex.

The majority of men never learn that the urge of sex has other possibilities, which far transcend in importance that of mere physical expression. The majority of those who those who make this discovery, do so after having wasted many years at a period when the sex energy is at its height, prior to the age of forty-five to fifty. This is usually followed by noteworthy achievement.

Biographies of American industrialists and financiers are filled with evidence that the period from forty to sixty is the most productive age of man.”

Well, there you have it. When young men chase women for sex, they are throwing their wild oats into the wind. They are dissipating their energies, short-circuiting their currents to get a quick spark of pleasure which then leaves them in darkness. In order to get a continuous light-source there needs to be an element of resistance (called the filament in a light-bulb). Resistance builds strength.

We undoubtedly live in a sexually charged time. Sex is used constantly by advertisers and marketers to entice men to buy things. Also, women and girls today routinely dress in extremely provocative clothes, even in the workplace. All this adds up to more invitations to think about sex today than men suffered in the past. If it were not for my hatred of the language of victimology I would call this is a form of sexual harassment of men.

This plays brilliantly into the hands of women, who obviously would like nothing more than to ‘bump up’ the market value of their sexual favours. Indeed, this relationship between the need to increase their sexual market value and the increasing ‘sexiness’ of women’s appearance can be observed in society. As women have become more harsh and less feminine in some of their behaviours (thus depleting the attractiveness of their personalities to men) they have had to compensate by turning up the volume of their physical appeal: shorter skirts, lower-cut tops, exposing their stomachs etc. This ends up harming them though, as they are only wanted for sex, and not their personality.

A more temperate attitude towards sex would be healthier for both men and women. It would allow men to concentrate on more important things, and it might allow women to develop their personalities and not just their looks.

References and further reading:

‘Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection’, Kanazawa, S., Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2003) 257–272

‘Testosterone and dominance in men’, Mazur,A. and Booth, A., Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1998) 21, 353–397

Testosterone on Wikipedia

Men at screens

If you define the 'men's movement' in the broadest sense as 'men at screens' (e.g.: as pointed out towards the end of this superb article) then recent political activity in the UK has shown how powerful 'men at screens' are becoming, compared to the politicians and the traditional media.

For example, these two men: Danniel Hannan, and Guido Fawkes.

Have been making the news here. The former for a brilliant attack on Gordon Brown, which has been viewed by over two million people on Youtube, whilst the later is running a very high traffic blog which is pulling no punches in attacking the corrupt politicians here in the UK, even resulting in the resignation of one of their vile spin doctors recently.

Oh yes, the times are a'changing. And intelligent activist men online are growing in power all the time!

Duped dads

Duped Dads is a website which brings you news and commentary about paternity fraud, an issue which is increasingly faced by today's emasculated western man. We aim to raise national and international awareness, and inform of the issues facing men and children whose lives have been ruined as a result of this heinous crime. We also discuss the reasons behind this crime, such as the child support racket, often which has no penalty for the woman.

Save the males

Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book Save the Males, in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society

also see Jennifer Howze mock the article

Christian Bale's alledged domestic violence incident

Last week Christian Bale, who plays Batman in the newly released, highly successful latest Batman film, 'The Dark Knight', was taken into a police station for questioning, following an alleged domestic violence incident. We can't know the full truth behind this, but it seems that he was in a hotel room prior to attending the London premier of the film when his mother and sister got into an argument with him. Its been suggested that they were asking him for money (£100,000, thats $200,000 US) and that when he refused there was a heated argument during which his mother insulted his wife. Its then alleged that he pushed and shoved the mother and sister. For this, they reported him to the police, who took him in for about 4 hours of questioning. More seriously, his name has now been pulled through the mud by the media, and he will forever be tainted with the suggestion that he is violent towards his own family members.

Maybe he is, we can't know. But just imagine for a moment that all he did was push his mother and sister, after they had severely provoked him during an already tense evening. Should this REALLY be a police matter? It seems most likely to me that they reported him to the police out of spite, rather than out of any genuine crime being committed.

Of course, this is just a high profile example of the type of event that happens to many men, every day, all over the Western world. They are deliberately provoked by one of the women in their life, they are wound up to the point where the woman KNOWS they will loose their temper. Some minor physical act, like a push, shove, or slap is made. And the woman can then run to the police and use the taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies as a weapon of spite against the man.

And, in a bizarre twist, Christian Bale already comes from a broken home, and after his father divorced, he married Gloria Steinem, the feminist famous for coining the phrase "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

My God, hasn't this man suffered enough already!?

Afghanistan

Number of British troops in Afghanistan = 8,000
Approximate number who are men = 6400
Approximate number who are women = 1600
Ratio of male to female troops: 4:1
Ratio of male troops to female troops killed so far: 150:1

This week 4 British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. One of them happened to be a woman, the first British woman killed there in this conflict (compared to 150 men). All four deaths are sad and to be mourned. But what is truly sickening is the manner in which the media have covered this. Predictably, all we've heard about is the woman killed. The three men have been allowed to remain face-less casualties, in fact, they have typically not even been referred to as men, but as soldiers. A typical way that this is reported is: A woman was killed in Afghanistan this week, along with three other soldiers. i.e. whenever men are the victims, their sex isn't mentioned, when women are, its highlighted.

I did a Google news search on 'British soldiers killed Afghanistan' and the first 8 stories all basically exclusively focus on the woman. The first 8 headlines:

War in Afghanistan: 'She was a truly special person who died a hero'
Bryant was on secret mission in Afghanistan
Right or wrong, we must let mothers go to war
A woman’s choice
Double standards on the frontline
Wife 'died a hero' in Afghanistan
'I am devastated beyond words - but so incredibly proud of her'
Family's tears for Sarah – daughter, wife and soldier

Its not until the 9th headline that we hear any mention of the men at all. And then the 10th link tells us that: "In addition to Cpl Sarah Bryant, 26, of the Intelligence Corps, three special forces soldiers were killed in the latest attack."

"In addition", its almost like an after-thought isn't it?

Nevermind, eh? They were only men.

Theres nothing funny about prison rape

LA Times: Smirking at sexual attacks on inmates makes us all less safe.

Steve Moxon, author of 'The Woman Racket' defends men who use prostitutes

From Steve Moxon, author of 'The Woman racket': "There is no 'power' relation between them; in no species is there any cross-sex biological dominance interaction -- it's always only same-sex. Furthermore, the main business of social systems is the 'policing' of the male hierarchy.

All normal men desire -- quite apart from a stable, loving relationship -- an endless string of novel sexual partners. Most men don't interest women in this activity, because they aren't high enough in status for women to be sufficiently attracted to them. Even for those men who do interest women, extra-pair sex is fraught with danger (not least women wanting to steal them from their partners). The most straightforward and honest way to satiate the desire for extra-pair sex is to pay for it. But if men pay for extra-pair sex, then we intuitively see them as having 'broken the rules', in how we naturally 'police' the male hierarchy. This is why there is such a general downer on prostitution. Yet the exploitation here clearly is not of the women, but of the normal desires of men: men are exploited by women for money."

'Sex and Culture' by J.D. Unwin

From 'Fschmidt' on my forum:

I just read an incredible book called "Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin published in 1934. The book analyzes 80 primitive cultures (anthropology) and a number of past empires (history) and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline.

This book makes me feel ridiculous for thinking that we are facing some new problem with feminism. We are just repeating history, that has been repeated over and over again. I knew that late Rome had some of these issues, but I didn't know how universal it was. For example, in late Babylonia, they had alimony, child support, no-fault divorce, marital rape laws, and economic equal rights for women. Soon after, this empire, that had lasted hundreds of years, collapsed. All of these successful cultures had begun at the opposite extreme, almost beyond modern imagination, with no rights for women. For example, the punishment for adultery among the early Anglo-Saxons was that adulterous wife was killed and the guilty man had to buy a new wife for the harmed husband. The European middle ages were a result of sexual decadence and the gradual rise of Europe starting in the 1600s was the result of gradually increasing regulation of women, largely caused by Christianity.

Since this book was published in England in 1934, Unwin describes the degree of sexual decay in his time as being substantially less advanced than it was by the end of other empires. Of course, what we see today in 2008 is quite different from 1934, and exactly matches the behavior of all empires just before their collapse.

The great strength of this book is in its method, to rationally analyze all anthropological and historical data to look for the relationship between sex and culture. The weakness of this book is when he tries to analyze and explain this relationship. Unwin is actually an academic liberal thinker, and largely a Freudian, which was common at this time. His explanation is that restricting female sexuality also restricts male sexuality, and that repressed sexuality expresses itself in other ways such as cultural advancement. All of us realize that this is nonsense. We realize this because we live in a culture that is fully decayed, and we know that restricting female sexuality actually benefits male sexuality by distributing women more equitably. So I cannot really hold Unwin's mistaken conclusion against him since he did not have enough understanding to realize the cause of the relationship between sex and culture that he found.

I don't think anyone interested in men's rights could not be profoundly influenced by reading this book. It is extremely hard to find. I got it through inter-library loan. This week, I will try to contact the publisher to see if anything can be done to make this book more widely available.

How, post-30, the balance of power shifts towards men

Women in their thirties feel aggrieved that men in their thirties won’t commit to them. But aren’t these thirtysomething women the very same people who snagged the slightly older men ten years before? Nobody knocks younger women for snagging older men. Because that’s part of the reason for the man shortage. And there must be lots of teenage and twentysomething men who think that there’s a woman shortage. But you never hear them complain, do you?

One thing that modern western women don't seem to understand is this: most men in their mid-30s do not feel any deep instinctive desire to commit to a woman in her mid-30s. Whenever, in the history of the world, has there been any society in which the men longed to marry women in their mid-30s? Marriage and commitment have probably only worked in the past as they hitched a ride on the already powerful sexual and emotional attraction that men feel for girls in their teens and early 20s, and NOT the aging women in their mid-30s. I feel this is a hard lesson that women are going to have to come to terms with.

In the past, society and the extended family probably led teenage/20-something girls to use their attractiveness to snag a dependable man into committing to her. The attractiveness that most young girls have (and they can be attractive at that age even if they don't have especially attractive faces) is a real form of power, no different, for example, than a pile of money. So the situation was akin to the family saying to the girl, when she comes of age: you have this money, but spend it wisely as soon as you can. Girls today are instead doing the equivalent to frittering their money away, then realising when they are hitting the mid-30s that they are high and dry and their halcyon years are behind them. This is why such 30+ single women do NOT deserve any sympathy: they had more than a good enough chance to get a good man, but they deliberately wasted it.