I sometimes joke:

“Let’s create a Patriarchy. That is the males in charge. Well. We will send the women out to work. When they have finished their day, the can do all the housework and in the bedroom, they can provide to the man’s every fancy.

That sounds remarkably like what we have at present.”

I continue:

“Let’s create a Matriarchy. That is the females in charge. Well. We’ll send the males out to work in the factory early in the morning. When they have gone off to work, we shall set off in the pram to the park and feed the ducks. Then, off to the beach for a paddle and swim. Then we shall go to the cafés for lunch. Then off to visit friends and back home in time to knock up a bit of food when the male comes home tired from the factory. Oh, and the male can hand over his wage packet to me on Fridays.

That sounds like what happened when I was a child in the 1950s.”

The author (standing) with his mother, Betty and younger brother Steve in London in the 1950s. A twenty-six-year-old mother of two.

The system set up by our ancestors was designed to impose on males a set of duties useful to society and to impose on females duties that are useful to society. Our ancestors did not load females with the drudgery of providing the staples of life. The man was put out to work and the woman was given the freedom of the house. Males were trained from an early age that they were the providers. They should ‘toughen up’ and take it ‘like a man’. And thus they would work down a coalmine for twelve hours a day and live a life of black dust and no daylight so that he provided for a wife and children. His training was harsh and tough. If he complied, he was a ‘good family man’. If he did not, he was a ‘waster’. If he hit his wife, he was tied to a whipping post and lashed by other men in the community. The roles were divided so that the two did not quarrel.

Notice that he is taking it ‘like a man’.

In the words of Jesse Powell:

“The system of patriarchy was developed precisely for the purpose of imposing on men the duties that men owe towards others and imposing on women the duties that women owe towards others.”

Jesse Powell continues with a blast against feminism:

“What about the ‘freedom’ to commit adultery? What about the ‘freedom’ of a woman to put her child in daycare? All of these proposed ‘freedoms’ involve someone committing a harmful act against someone else for their own selfish benefit. This is exactly what is wrong with feminism. All of the ‘freedoms’ that feminism bestows upon women are simply licenses for the woman to engage in some kind of selfish and harmful act against others for her own benefit. ...

I would furthermore argue that the ‘intended benefits’ of feminism, in reality, have no moral legitimacy at all since all of the ‘intended benefits’ of feminism are based on the woman violating her responsibilities towards others and are therefore morally corrupted. ...

Does such an assertion by feminists imply a hatred and condemnation of ... being a stay at home mother? The answer is yes ...

There is, of course, the additional factor that if a woman chooses to be a career woman instead of a stay at home mother she will then necessarily seek to denigrate the stay at home mother simply because the stay at home mother did not make the same decision that she made. The career woman implicitly believes that being a career woman is better than being a stay at home mother. If she did not believe this then she would be a stay at home mother herself. Since there is no moral equivalence between being a career woman and a stay at home mother this means that either one option is better or the other option is better. This makes it a necessity for the career woman to denigrate the stay at home mother in order for the career woman to morally justify herself.”

Of interest, most women don’t identify as feminists. Polls in the U.S. show that as few as eighteen percent of women identify themselves as feminist. In the UK, the figure is only seven percent. However, more than two-thirds of women in these countries support equality of the sexes. Feminists would like us to believe that feminism equals equality. One would assume that ‘equality’ means equal human rights and equality before the law, however, the feminists wish it to mean equality of outcomes, which is significantly different. But feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights alone. Feminism is advocating for women, not for equality. Where women have an advantage, equality is ignored. Feminism speaks of ‘rights’ for females but any talk of rights for men is derided as an unearned privilege of power. The bias has led the female generations into a bewildering situation where they pass exams in greater numbers than males and get jobs but cannot create relationships and happiness. They enter a workaholic-hell-hole devoid of love and parental fulfillment. They pass exams and join a workforce full of childless single women destined to be barren.

There are other dark forces at play in this hype. Feminism leads the girls to believe that men are favoured in the workplace. The suggestion is that women are held back by males and the evils of patriarchy. The women become bitter and resentful. When the women break through the glass ceilings and barriers that they claim patriarchy had created, they find that they start to suffer the same problem that men have faced all along. They start to suffer the stress that men have been trained to cope with in early life. Young males are taught to ‘tough’ things out and that fairness is not a given. The training is ongoing as older males say: “Taking it like a man.” and “Roll with the punches.” or, as a Scotsman said to me the other day: “Soldier on!” To this Scotsman, tolerating trouble was part of life. I think that males may have a natural stress relief from the days of hunting pigs. “Oh stuff it. It got away. Never mind. Better luck tomorrow.” Males also are trained to ‘toughen up’ at a young age. Males are imprisoned by a gender stereotype. They are constrained by the requirements of Christian patriarchy. From an early age, boys are put into a gender straitjacket that constrains them for life. The boy is trained for servitude to society and to family. The very young male is taught to take pride in enduring pain and hardship. He is trained to have tremendous respect for his mother and women in general. The young male is told to stop crying in his early years. Feeling is not acceptable in a young male. Males are expected to conceal their emotions. They are taught to have no fear as if they are on military training. Mothers tell their sons to: “stop crying” and to “toughen up” as part of the training for Christian patriarchy. This is all very much like the training of youth in the empires of the past where males were expected to be tough, unfeeling warriors. The mother says: “You are not scared of the dark. Are you?” The training continues on into adolescence with sports designed to toughen them further. The team sports such as football and rugby were an essential component of war training for the youth of the British Empire. Even cricket was a sport to keep the troops fit and competitive in hot climates. This makes me wonder why we are now seeing girl’s rugby. Why is it expected that women should follow all the loopy things that males are requested to do? Spartan boys were taken from their mothers at seven and housed in dormitories with other boys and trained as soldiers. There was a harsh discipline of a physical nature to make them strong. Younger boys were beaten by older boys to toughen them up. They marched without shoes, nor food. They learned to fight and endure pain. Loyalty to the city-state was encouraged and enforced. Male privilege was non-existent, it was male subservience to the state and society through an enforced code. Even in this modern world, I am not free to be me. I have to live up to male role expectations by being stoic and emotionless. Feminism entirely ignores the oppression that has been imposed on males for centuries. I have to suppress my emotions. I am entirely controlled by a code disciplined into me, initially by my mother, followed by a British grammar school and followed by a code of conduct expected of males. The school’s motto was ‘Garde Ta Foy’ which means ‘Keep The Faith’. It was all part of the toughening up procedure to turn young males into the mechanics of the British Empire. Roger has this to say of the British grammar school that I attended:

“I left in 1960. I have seen pupils beaten up in front of a class by a teacher knocked from one side of the room to the other. No one reported such things in those days. I was glad to get out of the place.” [8]

It was tough. I left in 1969. I didn’t find it that tough. I did get the school mathematics prize in my last year. Part of this code of conduct for males includes the treatment of females. The code is so strong that I cannot hit a woman even if she wrongs me. It is also difficult for me to contradict or argue with a woman. If a woman raises her voice, I clam up and give her the clammy silence look. If she is wrong, I shut up and leave her to her wrongness. There is no way that I can accept that I have control over females. It is the other way around. Women control males. This is why males joke: “She who must be obeyed.” My greatest influence is to go silent. If women want to play their games on me in a way that I am not prepared to accept, I go silent. I starve the game of oxygen and they get frustrated that they can’t get one over on me. I Thus, I play the game the same way that women play the game. One lecturer asked her students to recount times when they had been oppressed by males and no reply was the answer. This is because women benefit from male servility to their wishes. That is not to say that a poorly treated or poorly trained dog doesn’t bite its owner on the occasions that it is mistreated.

By 2000, seventy percent of British women were in paid jobs. Even mothers go back to paid work rather than staying at home to look after their children. Sixty-five percent of women with dependent children now work rather than tend to their children. Nearly half of the single mothers are in work and almost a third of single mothers with children under five work for money. I just find it a bit strange that mothers choose to work rather than spend time with their children. Karl Marx would be proud of the damage caused by his rebadged manifesto.

The current support for ‘Woman’s Liberation’ has made women loyal to their gender rather than loyal to the community. People who are loyal to their gender in preference to their partner are simply not going to make good partners. They will analyze the relationship for signs of imbalance in favour of the partner. This runs counter to the concept of a partnership. In a quality partnership, the one looks after the interests of the other in a mutually beneficial arrangement creating a sum that is greater than the individuals. If a partner believes that there is a ‘battle of the sexes’, it will convert the relationship from one of mutual benefit to self-interest which will turn a romance into a business arrangement with overriding priorities of ‘what’s in it for me?’ The relationship will turn into a power struggle spiralling down to a divorce where self-interest overrides the rights of the children to a quality upbringing. Relationships become competitive rather than cooperative. They become combative rather than compassionate. It has now become social competition. There is a widening divide between males and females. Gender politics is hurting our Christian family based culture. What is interesting is that the women are demanding change but it is the women that are reporting that they are unhappier. In reality, it is the differences between male and female that make the partnership exciting. There are areas where women are streets better than men and there are areas where men are streets better than women. You can’t make men operate like women and maintain happiness and you can’t make women operate like men and maintain happiness. In the voice of the old lady: “Men can do the man things and women can do the women things.”

The building block of society has always been the family unit working in a community of families. If we are to operate as families, it is necessary to create couples that are going to stay together and support each other through the task of raising children. When a couple first meet, little do they know of the challenges of parenthood. There will be immense forces acting on the couple as they travel through life. It will not remain as the blissful joy of the first meetings. The shared experiences at the beginning of their romance will bond them and help them through the troublesome times of raising a family. With all our labour saving devices and robots, it should not be necessary for two persons to work to raise a family. Assuming the woman will follow nature and she has not been led too far down the track of destructive logic, she will bear children. She is far wiser and skilled at the upbringing and training, so she would be in a better position if the male was out working.

In 1963, Betty Friedan wrote about the idealized American housewife of the 1960s:

“The suburban housewife — she was the dream image of the young American women and the envy, it was said, of women all over the world. The American housewife — freed by science and labor-saving appliances from the drudgery, the dangers of childbirth and the illnesses of her grandmother. She was healthy, beautiful, educated, concerned only about her husband, her children, her home. She had found true feminine fulfillment. As a housewife and mother, she was respected as a full and equal partner to man in his world. She was free to choose automobiles, clothes, appliances, supermarkets; she had everything that women ever dreamed of.” [1]

She continued with:

“Nobody argued whether women were inferior or superior to men; they were simply different.” [1]

Western Women were in re-education camp. She continues with:

“If the secret of feminine fulfillment is having children, never have so many women, with the freedom to choose, had so many children, in so few years, so willingly. If the answer is love, never have women searched for love with such determination. And yet there is a growing suspicion that the problem may not be sexual, though it must somehow be related to sex. I have heard from many doctors evidence of new sexual problems between man and wife — sexual hunger in wives so great their husbands cannot satisfy it....” [1]

And then greed got a hold of them:

“We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’ ” [1]

And then an unidentified problem:

“But on an April morning in 1959, I heard a mother of four, having coffee with four other mothers in a suburban development fifteen miles from New York, say in a tone of quiet desperation, ‘the problem.’ ” [1]

We are talking ‘coffee club’ dissatisfaction. They wanted more. There is a greed factor. But what they got was not what might be expected. Normal went from this:

To this:

And men suddenly got the freedom to sleep with unlimited women without any commitment. So this:

Very soon, became this:

The media changed this:

To this:

Girls that did not buckle to the new expectations of women were told to ‘lighten up’ or risk being deemed ‘Sexually Repressed’. They would sleep with males just to prove they were ‘liberated’. Liberated meant giving themselves to males for free. Branches of feminism in the early 1980s encouraged the idea that sexual freedom was an integral component of women’s freedom. Thus promiscuity was normalized. In essence, promiscuity was expected. Promiscuity was a hallmark of feminism. What is strange is that girls are giving the goods away for free to demonstrate that they are ‘liberated’. The opportunistic nature of males encourages males to ostracise girls that don’t. Girls have been persuaded that if they take a relationship then they are not truly ‘liberated’. She must be stupid if she chooses the freedom of family over corporate serfdom. Typical of these destructive texts appeared in ‘The Atlantic’. It doesn’t get much more idiotic than this:

“Katie, a 25-year-old woman I spoke with as part of my research, confided that she worried her single-minded pursuit of a graduate degree might limit her ability to meet a man with whom she could build a life. This realization — that she might want to prioritize a relationship over a career — felt shocking to Katie, and she did not admit to it easily. She felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signaled weakness and dependence, qualities she did not admire. To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening to Katie. She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.”

There is one particularly troubling sentence:

“She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.”

It’s as stupid as what happened in Bolshevik Russia. It is telling her that she is weak if she takes a boyfriend. Traditional was good for many reasons. She is being asked to forgo the items that are important to humans — relationships and family — in favour of an ideological cult funded by the super wealthy. She is denying her human desire for companionship and family so that she can demonstrate obedience to a funded cult. She has become a slave to inappropriate logic. Women in Russia were fed similar propaganda and this was the result of being freed from household slavery into daily toil in the icy cold with mud up to their knees.

The psychologists do well out of feminism as the girls finish up on antidepressants to maintain their fantasy of success in a dreary office leaving foreign immigrants of competing religions to enjoy the excitement of bringing new life into the world. They play straight into the hands of the funders, backers, and promoters of feminism by running foul of the fundamental goal of communism which was to destroy the family unit and replace it with the State. Even if these misguided girls relent and try to realise a family goal, they will be perceived by males as horrible wives, that will cheat on them, and divorce rape them.

There are all sorts of freedoms, but sexual freedom does not equate to female freedom. The myth of sexual freedom can destroy a girl’s life. Bulk bonking does not equate to quality relationships. Sex before love is different to love before sex. Love and sex are not the same thing. Camille Paglia had this to say:

“Feminist ideology is like a new religion for a lot of neurotic women. You can’t talk to them about anything.”

Another branch of anti-pornography feminists tried to suggest pornography was at the centre of women’s oppression. Logic did not apply because pornography arrived mainstream about the same time as the sexual revolution supported by feminism. When someone is watching porn, it is clearly porn and generally done behind locked doors. With porn, the male can become erotically aroused with a woman of his idealized choice without the need to fund a female. It devalued sex in the sexual marketplace.

Very soon, the ‘Brady Bunch’ became ‘Sex in the City’ and ‘Bewitched’ became ‘Two and a half men.’ Inappropriate sexual messaging became mainstream and normalized. The chat show hosts all seemed to develop funny ways of talking. Why are there so many LGBT chat show hosts? Where did they learn the strange way of talking?

Both males and females had been living under expectations imposed through centuries of culture designed to create a harmonious society where children were brought up in a family composed of their biological parents. The sexual revolution brought in the bogus idea that men and women are the same. The reality is that we are entirely different. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Women listened to the propaganda and lowered their knickers — thereby relinquishing the power of the female over the male. This was part of the Communist Party policy for the USA in 1963:

“Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.” [6]

Delving a bit further, you can find:

“Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.” [6]

We now have a situation where males are looking for sex, not marriage whilst women are looking for marriage. Promiscuity and sexual liberation have created a situation where women cannot find husbands. Feminism was sold on the basis that it would empower females, but it did the opposite. The high value of sex disappeared and males can avoid commitment. Not only are males able to avoid commitment, they are better off for doing so. Marriage has become a minefield for males and is better avoided.

The so-called sexual liberation of women looked more like sexual liberation for men. The concept of sexual liberation for women erroneously presupposes that women wanted more sexual partners than the one devoted husband and father. The suggestion is that females are finally getting what they have long wanted. But I don’t remember anybody being asked this and nor do I remember a vote on this. The real winners were males if the goal is plentiful sex with multiple partners. But they did not really win as there was no offspring. They got the feeling but not the outcome. ‘Sexual Liberation’ did not deliver. Women were not asked what they wanted. Women were told what they wanted. The logic was bizarre in itself but more bizarre is that it was swallowed hook line and sinker. Illogical slogans ushered in the era such as: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” One could say a plane needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle. A plane goes nowhere without wings and the human cycle ceases without a man. It is male enthusiasm to spread seed that brought the human race through millions of years of evolution. You could cease the evolution by convincing one of the genders to cease copulating. So, one has to question whether the sexual revolution was brought about to cull the Western Christians. It is fascinating how so many people accepted the lack of logic in “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Perhaps it should be used in the version: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” However, we can also say: “A woman needs a feminist like a fish needs a bicycle.” The message has become so distorted that girls accept illogical statements such as this one by a female psychotherapist in Time magazine:

“The message is clear: It’s O.K. to feel a void if you don’t have a job you love, but it’s not O.K. to feel a void if you don’t have a man you love — because healthy, successful women shouldn’t need men.”

That is illogical logic at it’s best. Re-read it again and again and the illogic becomes even more prominent. This type of persuasion from a person in a position of authority produces a lot of unhappy and disillusioned women. The psychotherapist challenges girls to live without a man. This is very, very dangerous. A girl works in an office block for forty years and gets to sixty with no family. An almost pointless life for a woman. Telling impressionable young girls that they should be tough enough to avoid males is a sad, despicable, and harmful act. Note item twenty of the Communist party goals of the USA:

“Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.” [6]

God or nature ensured that women enjoyed sex so that sex would occur. Women previously held themselves back in order to create a bond with a male and produce a family rather than a child of an unknown father. Women still hold themselves back, but for a different reason - to protect themselves from being seen as promiscuous. The issue here is that there is still a strong thought in society towards the sanctity of the family and it being necessary to convince observers that the father is, in fact, the father. Convinced that he sired the child, he takes responsibility for the consequence of his activities.

Females tend to be more discriminating in the choice of a mate because they invest more in the offspring from the outset. In the wild world of nature, females are an item over which males compete. They fight over females. They want the best female they can lay. Male enthusiasm to spread seed is now manifest in the explosion of pornography and prostitution that cater predominantly to males. Note item twenty-six of the Communist Party ideals of the USA:

“Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural and healthy’.” [6]

Out of interest, Israel broadcast pornography into Palestine when it occupied Palestine:

“Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television stations in Ramallah are broadcasting pornographic movies and programs in Hebrew, irate residents say. Soldiers occupied the offices of three local television and radio stations on Saturday morning, and started broadcasting the porn clips.” [9]

There is something twisted about this practice. Why would they do this? Did they have intent? I met Palestinian women in Amman, Jordan who voiced great anger at Israel’s action along the lines that it damages their boys. One local woman said:

“It’s not healthy really. I think the Israelis want to mess with our young men’s heads.” [9]

Anita, a mother of three, complained about

“the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.” [9]

Anita continued:

“I am furious. These are the people who are shooting at us that also play this disgusting trick on us,” [9]

If the Palestinians are complaining about porn, what effect is it having on our young males?

Men enthusiastically embrace a situation where they can mate with more partners with no commitment. That is not to say that there is a portion of women that enthusiastically enjoy regular one-night-stands. Generally, males enthusiastically embrace uncommitted casual sex, whilst women tend to look for relationships with a greater emotional commitment. However, the relative ease of obtaining casual sex is a discouragement to males forming long-term relationships and the shaky nature of a marriage is a further disincentive. Males eventually wake up to the fact that sex alone does not produce offspring. The reptile brain did not have the formula for the contraceptive world. After years of bonking, the male realizes that one needs to get a bit more organized to have offspring. I sometimes joke in man-talk: “God gave you a penis to fuck women, but he gave you balls to get them pregnant. If you don’t get them pregnant, why do you need balls?” I hint that they are not a full man until they have children. When meeting people as I travel through Muslim countries, the first greeting invariably includes: “Do you have children?” Thus they reinforce the concept that you are not a full man until you have children.

How does a male choose a mate in a climate where females sleep with multiple partners? How can he trust a girl to stay with him if all her associates are bed hopping? He will need to go out with her for many years to test her resolve. As a South African who had lived in America for a few years said to me:

“Marriage has become a business transaction. She marries and lives with him for five years. Then she takes him for everything that he is worth.”

Women have a similar problem. They have been encouraged into the workforce and become sexually active outside of marriage. The number of males that might consider an emotional commitment is low. How does she find a male for commitment rather than a male that is chasing sexual-exercise?

Women gained nothing in the sexual revolution. They did not need to have a sexual revolution to sleep with men. The milkman was always an obliging fellow.

There was often a general fear of a spouse cheating on them whilst they were at work. This was most easily accomplished with someone who comes to the door such as the milkman. Gossip has it that it is more common nowadays for the wife to cheat with a deliveryman or repairman.

Women gained sexual promiscuity packaged as ‘freedom’, even if they did not want it but they lost out in emotional commitment. Abandoning the existing order of monogamy-for-life was a one-way ticket to sexual confusion, not liberty.

Women became more visible than they have ever been in history in more than one meaning of visible:

Although the above is considered pornographic, this next statue is called art and is acceptable in a public place:

Acceptable public art. I never worked out why this was acceptable.

Greater freedom about sex has led to greater exploitation by males rather than liberation. The females don’t assist when they become obsessed with body-image demands created by society which leads females to starvation diets, breast enlargements, nose straightening and body modification.

Along with body-image, women have developed an obsession with success — a restless desire to be a successful career woman, a devoted mother, a top cook, an interesting conversationalist and a hot lover in the sack.

Being sexually shy is popularly described as prudish — probably to encourage promiscuity. High-profile images pushed by the media dictate that females should make their sex lives adventurous. So many finish up in hospital for repairs for sexually inflicted injuries. The movement of women from the home into the workforce and their greater sexual availability to males was sold as a ‘liberation’ from ‘women’s oppression’. It was anything but. It is the ultimate in gullibility. Who would actually work if they did not have to? The freedom to give every boy in the village a free blowjob is not freedom, it is social conditioning of the wrong kind. One girl from a surfy beach suburb said to me:

“I don’t like it when they put their hand behind my head when I am giving them a head-job.”

Shock horror. She is referring to multiple males. Why is she giving this away? Why was she giving free blowjobs? Where did she ever get the idea that this was normal practice? Men should entertain women, not the other way around.

When a young male asks me: “Andy. Where do we find good girls?”, he is asking where do we find girls untainted by the sexual revolution. They are looking for the type of girl that existed before the madness started. They are looking for girls that are not sexually promiscuous. These males do not want the product of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution gave a small range of males a vast sexual feast, but gave other males a sexual starvation. But all males now have a problem finding a girl that they can trust to create a family and offspring.

This was a question on a blog:

“Does women’s sexual liberation also help men?”

A woman answered:

“I think it harms most men, ... It helps those high on the tingles scale. When you basically promise one to one in the old system, the ugly women end up with the ugly men. Now the ugly men get no one.”

Another:

“It helps elite men have more casual sex. It’s detrimental for average and below men.”

Another:

“It helps men get laid, sure.”

Another:

“Damn right it helps men! No more waiting for marriage until sex, in fact, no need for marriage at all.”

The last sentence was significant: “no need for marriage at all.”

Referring to the one-to-one ratio under monogamy-for-life:

“It wasn’t though. Forty percent of men procreated compared to eighty percent of women.”

I don’t understand that one and I am not sure where the statistics come from. Another:

“Also, men were sent to wars we had no business dealing with, we would die young working our asses off for some wife who hated us and for children we weren’t even sure belonged to us.”

Another:

“More than forty percent of men in the fifties got to procreate.”

Another:

“Still better than one out of seventeen like before monogamous marriages.”

Another refers to selective breeding as in the farming industry:

“The ugly women also don’t get anyone.”

Our first lady commenter continues:

“The ugliest of the ugly (or mentally deficient) don’t get anyone, period. That is only a percent or two. That was probably always true.”

The conversation goes off track with:

“For example: in Cleveland, seventy-seven percent of children in public schools are in a single mother home. That is stereotypical AF... Fuck the mother, walk away and she’ll raise your sexy son to go fuck other slutty teens. The BB in this scenario is the taxpayer and welfare. Without welfare, women in the ghetto would more often opt for abortions when they saw their friends begging in the street or truly suffering. A social safety net just gives women a chance to take bigger risks without suffering any consequences. So they do.”

It also makes people more dependent on the state which is to the advantage of those that control the state.

“There are never again going to be a lot of religious virgins running around. For most people, sex with their eventual spouse is going to be pretty mundane after hooking up with several excitingly random strangers. Sexual boredom is a major contributor to marriages failing. Ordinary/average people need to rethink what ‘commitment’ means in their ‘in real life’ lives, not Hollywood hypotheticals. It might be something you enter and exit in a few years, after you have children. In that case, men need to be better protected from the ravages of family court.”

More:

“Lots of lonely people out there. I read that there are quite a few women on anti-depressants.. Plenty of men too..”

Here is somebody in touch with the truth:

“Marriage is for the benefit of children, not the parents.”

Never forget that one.

“Nothing personal, I’ve dated two girls on antidepressants.. Never again.. Ever!!”

Some males get very little sex from the liberated women:

“This is EXACTLY what ‘sexual utopia in power’ is about... Men thought the sexual emancipation of women would cause women to become indiscriminate, not MORE hypergamically discriminating.”

Meaning that women all want to marry upward.

They do not wish to marry nor have sex with men beneath their level:

“Yet women continue to get more unhappy every year. The sexual revolution might have allowed them to have their various holes pumped ... by a larger number of men than their sisters fifty years ago, but relationship wise they’re less fortunate. The sexual liberation of women has profited men more than women.”

He is not quite correct as it has only benefited men that want instant sex. It has not benefited males that want a happy marriage. It has not benefited all males as this blogger mentions:

“More men with nothing are certainly not profiting more than more men previously having something.”

Sexual liberation has not benefited anyone, nor has it benefited society. It will be replaced by people with a religion that bans promiscuity and reinstates a male-dominated patriarchy with women in the background manipulating the males to do all the work.

“It helps attractive men who want hook ups. It hurts men who want relationships and don’t want to date promiscuous women.”

More:

“There were reasons sex and more importantly pregnancy was a carefully transacted resource. ‘Sex’ has been ‘liberated’. But pregnancy is in a god awful state.”

Sex has been liberated but at the expense of broken families and children’s welfare.

“Overcoming LMR (Last Minute Resistance) is what gets men past women’s anti-slut defense... No amount of sex positivity is going to convince women to start having more sex with bottom tier omega men who are the ones complaining.”

More:

“Male sexuality responds to visual cues in a way that female sexuality doesn’t, so it is therefore seen as being ‘objectifying’... Shaming of the ‘male gaze’ has been around for millennia.”

More:

“I have never heard a workable definition that reliably differentiates between desire and objectification.”

More:

“Except when they are called creeps, perverts, sexual deviants, rapists, etc. not because they actually are, mind you, but because society finds male sexuality a joke at best and threatening at worst.”

Women like a gaze from someone who might interest them but a similar gaze from a street urchin is classed as creepy. An ugly rich man can get away with it. A poor man cannot:

“I have some female friends who are quick to cry ‘creep!’ after every interaction with a guy they don’t find attractive but who approached them regardless. It’s interesting to me how ‘cute’ guys are never creepy.”

More:

“Hypergamy plus men being much more willing to engage in casual sex means women are all chasing the top twenty percent of men.”

More:

“... men are still shackled, they were never liberated and had more restrictions placed upon them throughout history.”

More:

“Men do not have reproductive rights. If a man gets drunk and sleeps with a woman, its rape, but not the other way around.”

This blogger has a grasp on history:

“I feel like the people who say this didn’t realize how sex and reproduction worked for our ancestors. There’s a reason why every successful culture/religion had similar traditions in that women were shamed for being promiscuous. In those times, if women had sex with whoever they wanted, they’d end up dead. Not particularly because people killed her. But because if a woman had a one night stand, and got pregnant, she would have no one to help her raise a child. Marriage is how this is averted. If women were sexually liberated back then, they’d get pregnant, have a fatherless baby, end up on the streets and very likely have their baby die, ... they would follow its demise. Men were the primary laborers, and if the woman didn’t have a man, they’d either stay with their father until they find a husband, or if they had sex with a random guy, she’d get kicked out and ostracized. It was a brutal time because people knew sex led to reproduction, and without support, reproduction leads to death. The governments didn’t help women back then. There were no ‘women’s shelters’ back then. These institutions were created after to HELP women.”

More:

“We train women to be hedonistic, which is why you can’t really bond deeply with women...” [Hedonistic = engaged in the pursuit of pleasure; sensually self-indulgent]

More:

“A man in the past could marry and work hard for his family knowing that it was a long-term shared journey they were on.”

More:

“There is no point in a woman choosing a man to provide for her, she can fuck a hottie, marry a provider later, divorce him without any level of social shame being incurred.”

A Swiss man, Johann Jakob Bachofen wrote his Das Mutterrecht in 1861. He believed that originally humans lived in a state of sexual promiscuity and that such promiscuity excluded any certainty of paternity on the male line. Descent could, therefore, be reckoned only in the female line. He suggested that motherhood was the source of human society, religion, morality, and decorum.

In reality, it was monogamy that created the hierarchical order in our society. Both males and females appear to have a tendency towards promiscuity, but it appears that those that want to sustain society, recognize the importance of monogamy. In the Animal Kingdom, monogamy is rare. The concept that a couple must stay exclusively together is socially constructed. The family was the invention that enabled civilization. The rules were tied up in what we call patriarchy which puts a tough set of rules and expectations on males. The family has a basic role in our society. About ninety percent of U.S. citizens think cheating is morally wrong, however, seventy percent have thought of doing it and forty percent have actually done it.

By 1870, contraceptives, in the form of rubber condoms, were commonly used in the U.S.A. and Europe. Before that time, any sex act outside of marriage ran a huge risk of unwanted pregnancy. Most women were sexually active only after marriage which conveniently kept the nasty little diseases in check. The single parent ratio stayed below five percent for many centuries.

Women were told they could be freed from the kitchen. It was termed the ‘Liberation of Women’. However, the liberation did not lead to liberation. Liberation gave them a choice. They were offered work, work, work, or work. In another example of illogical logic, working in a factory does not equal freedom. It is the opposite of freedom. Jesse Powell, (male), puts it this way:

“When a man says to a woman ‘you are free’ he is at the same time saying ‘you are on your own.’ Women’s liberation equals male abandonment. From the man’s point of view, the purpose of liberating women is precisely to enable and justify abandoning women.

In the natural patriarchal order, men invest in women and women invest in children. This allows the child’s needs to be met, the woman’s needs to be met, and the man’s psychological needs to be met. If the woman breaks the contract by declaring “I am free” the man no longer has a reason or a motivation to invest in the woman. If the woman takes care of herself then the man taking care of the woman is pointless and redundant. If the woman is willful and disobedient then the man’s investment in the woman will be squandered. Either way, women’s independence destroys the man’s motivation to invest in the woman. This is why women’s liberation equals male abandonment.

Men’s abandonment of women equals women’s abandonment of children. When adults steal resources and time from children by not fully investing in children’s welfare this leads to an ongoing process of intergenerational deterioration. This is why in terms of family indicators the next generation is always worse off than the prior generation.”

We now have the problem of trying to identify the benefits of Feminism and ‘sexual liberation’. One sentence here is:

“The fulfillment of the woman’s potential as a person.”

However, we live in a community and this involves cooperative involvement. If we concentrate on the individual, we cease to have a cooperative community. Life is all about relationships. The individual on a pedestal has a lonely life. Liberated women sought and exercised freedoms that focused on individualistic desires. This destroys the concept of a cooperative partnership. The feminist focus is solely on women. What is best for women. She for she. But marriage is for the benefit of the offspring, not the woman, nor the man. Men recognize this as they get down on their knees to ask a female to marry them. For males, marriage and family come first. There is an insightful article by Suzanne Venker entitled:

‘Son, Don’t Marry a Feminist’.

It contains the following:

“Don’t marry a feminist, son, because she has an axe to grind, and someday you’ll become her target.

Don’t marry a feminist because she’s unable to give for the sake of giving. Feminists always tally up a score.

Don’t marry a feminist because the family will not come first. Her career will.

Don’t marry a feminist because equality, not marriage, is her ultimate goal. And for marriage to work, the focus and commitment has to be marriage.

Don’t marry a feminist because if you get divorced, which you likely will since competitive relationships don’t last, she’ll blame you -- and then use your kids as a weapon.

Don’t marry a feminist because you’ll never be happy. Feminists are perpetually angry and dissatisfied and have no sense of humor. ...

The bottom line, son, is that a feminist will not love you the way a real woman will.” [2]

Her blog is well worth a visit or better still, regular visits.

Anne Claude blogs:

“ ‘Smashing the patriarchy’ means destroying civilization. No more electricity, running water, transportation, or well-stocked supermarkets. Mass starvation and death by dehydration. Feminists have no experience running civilization and their fondest wish would kill civilization and everyone in it.”

In the past, women were not expected to work although they often did. ‘Not expected to work’ is different from ‘expected not to work’. When women enter the workforce, it is often not what they expect. They underestimate the day-to-day drudgery. In the words of Kelly Cutrone:

“College is nothing more than a babysitting service. These students are totally unprepared for the real world. The reality for women who want to work in PR is that they are going to be working with twenty-four catty [women] who will backstab and compete with them. No one will say thank you. You will eat lunch at five p.m. It sucks and it’s hard work.” [14]

Diana: “The feminist fantasy that I was continually fed was that feminism would transform a world of brutal competition and hierarchy into paradise.”

Diana: “Feminism was sold to an entire generation of women ... as casting off of age-old shackles, which were all bad all the time. Feminism could never agree on whether the proper goal was joining the male world or destroying it.”

Similar happened in pornographic Germany during the Weimar Republic in around 1930. Yeats-Brown writes in 1939:

“Pornographic literature was displayed in the leading bookshops of the principal cities, and eagerly bought by boys and girls who thought themselves emancipated from the cramping complexes of their elders.”

Feminism let them down. But back to the topic of patriarchy. I usually tell the story about the creation of civilization in this manner. We started to live in static communities. It was realized that sex created babies. It was obvious who the mother was but less obvious who the father was. The male had to be first informed that sex made babies and he was clearly the father. We still have to tell boys that sex makes babies and they need reminders during a relationship. They neither know that sex makes babies and they forget that sex makes babies. Thus it was necessary to tell the girls to keep their legs together. Some say that the women were controlled but all that women had to do was get girls to keep their legs closed until a male agreed to surrender his freedom to the woman. He had to get down on his knees and ask her to accept him. Certain management was needed. The male was led to believe that it was his choice and that he had some control. The woman was skilled at emotion whilst his rigid upbringing caused him to be wary of retribution for unwanted action. Thus a sweet and demure girl can control a rough and tough male. Even the other day, a girl was trying to get me to do something. She used every trick in her arsenal, but I would not sway. She finished by giving a soft “grrrrr” and gently shook my arm. She still talks to me, but there is no way I could do that with a male nor a woman. Only women can do that and we tolerate it. I am beginning to think that women set up the current system to benefit women and society. If society had been set up to benefit males only, women would be sent out to work, sex would be rough, tough, and one-sided, and there would be a lot more slapping. Women would be available to males for any activity day or night. If women set up the system, males would be sent out to work, they would be fully responsible for sustenance, sex would be rationed, male violence would be punished by whipping or jail time. And thus a male could earn status in society by being a ‘gentleman’. The Urban Dictionary has a modern description of gentleman:

“Something very rare today. A man who is respectful and considerate of those around him. Acts politely. Treats women with respect. Open doors for them, pulls out chairs, and is classy. What more guys should be. Because regardless of what your testosterone driven buddies tell you, treating people with respect and being polite doesn’t make you a ‘fag’ or ‘wimp’ or whatever. It makes you a good person and will really benefit you in life.

When we went out, he opened doors for me, offered me his coat, and brought me flowers. He was such a gentleman.”

The definition includes: “Treats women with respect.” However, there is also a strong hint concerning the degradation of the male respect for women since the propaganda plague of the promiscuous revolution.

The definition of a gentleman is worth observance because it contains elements that are needed to make relationships work. A definition by Robert Lee contains:

“The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive, he can forget, and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.” [4]

This next description comes from:

Haruki Murakami: “A gentleman is someone who does not what he wants to do, but what he should do.” [10]

Note that a strict upbringing is required to achieve this.

The definition generally refers to being decent to others, particularly women, as in the following:

• Being a gentleman means treating others, especially women, in a respectful manner and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they prefer not to do.
• A man of good family, breeding, or social position.
• A gentleman protects the integrity of himself and those around him.
• A gentleman is genuinely helpful and non-judgmental.
• A gentleman is loyal, faithful and honest to partner.
• A gentleman opens the door for girls and offers his seat to ladies. It is a traditional gesture of care and respect.

We do not wish to arrive in an era where men start to say:

“Being a gentleman and respecting women is a sign of being a failure.”

Nor do we want to degrade to the state where this seventeen-year-old Iraqi girl writes that in her culture:

“Women and girls face constant degradation and humiliations, large and small, even at the hands of their own families. ... As a teenager, you are not only numb to what is going on around you, but you’re also numb to what is going on inside of you. No one cares about you and you don’t even care about yourself. You are made to feel worthless. You are afraid to voice your problems or your ideas. Everyone calls you stupid for having a problem, because for them, in such a state of numbness, what is a problem? ... You are numb, worthless and nothing but a ‘piece of meat.’ ...All I can remember from that time is how my grandmother used to encourage my brother, who is six years older than me, to curse me and call me bad names because I was a girl. ... I was made to believe that being a girl was such a disgrace and I was something really awful. ... The stares and sexual remarks begin the moment you start to look like a girl, sometimes as young as nine years old, and it never stops afterward. ... Somehow, everything in the world has to revolve around men here, men and their parts. It is a male-dominated community. ... He thinks that if I talk to a boy then I’m going to sleep with him or something, because that’s what he does with girls. He sweet talks them into doing what he wants, and if denied then he gets mad. For him, it’s like, how can you deny a man? He thinks that boys who don’t do this are not men, just failures. That being a gentleman and respecting women is a sign of being a failure. Men are sex crazed in Iraq, for some unknown reason. Almost all Arab men are like that, except for the ‘failures,’ as my brother would say.” [5]

Without gentlemanly behaviour of males, women have a problem and that stems from upbringing. This is all part of a Christian upbringing where young males are trained by their mothers to respect and defer to girls. Without the Christian value system, society goes back to the way of treating women as depicted by the Iraqi girl. It goes back to the times before Jesus raised the status of women by giving them power in the household. There were many women who had been abandoned and left destitute by their husbands. Jesus reversed the attitude of males and society so that males revered and cared for the women.

A Jewish writer by the name of Alfred Eidersheim wrote that some rabbis who made daily prayers: “I thank Thee, God, that I was not born a Gentile, a dog, or a woman.”

It is necessary to have a culture of honour where people do the ‘right thing’. The worst is a culture of revenge as is enforced by the western criminal system. The western criminal system operates in the ways of Moses. Moses rules tend to be negative along the lines of “You shall not do this.” and if you do you shall be hung from a tree.

Moses: “But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house.” [Deuteronomy 22:13-21]

Out of interest, this is in the next chapter:

Moses: “When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.” [Deuteronomy 24:5]

And how about this one:

Moses: “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.” [Deuteronomy 25:11]

If women did set up the system, they would not have argued for equality because that would mean they would have to do daily physical labour and take the stress of responsibility for provisioning the house. Under equality, women would have to do more than lie silently in bed in the ‘missionary’ position. Under the women set up, women could be put in an exalted role with men subservient to their needs.

This

Became this:

Who is subservient to who?

Societies need a system of control. Males are the ones in greater need of control. Control is control of the male by society for the benefit of females. The male defers to the female. The definition of deference is: ‘polite submission and respect’ and defer has the synonyms: ‘yield, submit, give way, give in, surrender, accede, bow, capitulate, acquiesce, knuckle’. Deferring to women works wonderfully until the woman takes advantage. If she differs and argues, then it fails. So the man says: “Let us go to the Chinese restaurant.” and she says: “No, I want to go to the Vietnamese restaurant.” The relationship will fail. If she says: “Which would you prefer dear?” and he says: “But which would you prefer dear?” They would probably finish up going to the Vietnamese restaurant, but did it really matter? It only matters under a conflict situation where there is a power play. There is more joy in viewing the happiness of the other person.

If males had set up the system purely for the benefit of males, it would have been closer to the slave trade:

White Slaves. Saudi Arabia did not ban slavery until 1962 and then only because of pressure from the West, although it still continues illegally.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold thirty-thousand Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. From 1641 to 1652, over one-half-million Irish were killed by the English and over 300,000 were sold as slaves. During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of ten and fourteen were forcibly taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. Slavery was not just a black affair.

Men have not been holding women captive in Christendom. Women held men in subjugation. There were occasional instances of male slave beating his master, but these men were severely punished as all slaves are punished. Women were effectively in the position of never being beaten under Christianity. This poster is from 1911.

This postcard jokes about a woman’s subjugation of a male using the tradition of leap year where each fourth year, a woman could insist that a man marry her. Note again that society has to invent ways of tricking males into female subservience.

The patriarchal society was defined as a society where the male was the head of the family. The definition did not state that males ran the nation and that males had all the power over women. That has been a recent distortion by the feminists. Interestingly, within the family, women tended to control the male by subtle methods and the male was made to appear to be the head. With the promotion of feminism, the definition has been modified for political gain to “as a society organized and run by men.” This is more difficult to escape. It is deceitfully used because the women still effectively control the society from within the house and the males outside the house would work to provide shelter and food for the women and would organize the structure of society so that women could exist in peace and prosperity. The feminist definition of patriarchy is along the lines of “A patriarchal social system can be defined as a system where men are in authority over women in all aspects of society.” which is entirely different to the traditional definition. In the traditional patriarchal society, women appear to have fewer rights, but they were always well kept by the males. It enabled women to escape the rough and tough duties outside the house and all the horse fighting of the running of society. They may have been close to home as a wife and mother, but they were not in slavery and nor were they oppressed. They chose who they married. They chose what they did each day and the male would always make decisions to the benefit of his wife. Woman were highly respected as mothers. Males were trained by their mother to revere their wives an treat them in the best manner possible. There were societal expectations on males to care for women in every way. Women were a protected section of society. Men died to save women. Man dominating women is a falsification of the truth. Males protected and revered females and would live a tough life doing so. Men lived in a harsh ‘survival of the fittest’ regime where failure was often fatal. Women were not thrown out as in and left destitute as in pre-Christian times. Christian Patriarchy had corrected that. Women would respond graciously. Women, once married to a caring man, would live a comparatively free life devoid of the many struggles that a male faced. There was a stressful social demand on males that they provide and protect their female. The females could play the role of a mother and not be encumbered with the task and stress of providing. In a matriarchal society, we find the reverse. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, matriarchy is a “form of social organization in which the mother or oldest female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line;” but it may also be: “government or rule by a woman or women.” So we have a similar conundrum. A matriarchal society tends to be a society where the woman is the head of the family. Again, the woman would organize the family for the benefit of father and children. If she did not do so, she would not have a family. He would disappear to far-away parts or refuse to marry in the first place. In some instances, a matriarchal society would have the citizenry ruled by a woman. This does not mean that males were oppressed. There is no way that males were going to accept oppression unless the oppressor’s agents were males. (Males get jailed at a high rate but the jailers are male.) In both the patriarchal society and the matriarchal society, both males and females had roles to play. The common factor in both the patriarchal society and the matriarchal society was that man did the heavy work and the dangerous jobs. He was the primary earner and had a low life expectancy. Both of these societies gave special importance to the family unit where a mother and father cared for their offspring. No individuals care for children better than their biological parents and grandparents. Blood is a significant issue for the creation of quality members of society. Non-biological parents just do not get the job done as well. The communist concept of baby factories and baby farms is not workable and never will be and neither is the modern feminist equivalent going to be workable. Although feminism does not have a strong following in the community, it dominates political thinking as if it was the controlling force. Feminist rants still occur in a country that has a female queen and a female prime minister.

A patriarchal society is not male-centric. It favours the woman in that she was not expected to go out to work nor be responsible for providing an income. The status of the male very much depended on his ability to bring in an income whilst the status of a female depended on her looks and her ability to be a mother. Women, for the most part, were well looked after.

The present society has thrown out the rule book that was used for the past two thousand years. It is a revolution that will be discussed in thousands of years time. The current society is neither a patriarchal society nor a matriarchal society. It has become a gynocentric society. Oxford Dictionary defines gynocentric is defined as: “centred on or concerned exclusively with women; taking a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.” In a matriarchy or patriarchy, the biological parents form the core part of the family unit. The new society is denying a role for males. If the male has a role in the family, it is at the whim of the mother. He is out of the family on the immediate word of the mother, irrespective of the truthfulness of the words. Fatherhood is in limbo in the current society. Fatherhood is being undermined and often eliminated with dire consequences. The father’s role is being denied to the children of the modern generation. Children need fathers. A full seventy percent of the inmates in USA jails were brought up in a fatherless family and the remainder were brought up in a female-headed family where the father was weak. (He was undermined or regularly absent. “Your father is a deadbeat!”) Sixty-three percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [15] Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. Eighty-five percent of all children who show behaviour disorders come from fatherless homes. [16] Eighty percent of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes. [17] (Rape-culture is magnified by fatherless families.) Seventy-one percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [18] Eighty-five percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes. [19] Forty-three percent of US children live without their father [20]

Father absent families also affect girls. Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are fifty-three percent more likely to marry as teenagers, seven-hundred-and-eleven percent more likely to have children as teenagers, one-hundred-and-sixty-four percent more likely to have a pre-marital birth and ninety-two percent more likely to get divorced themselves.

Considering boys and girls from father deprived households: ninety percent of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [21] Seventy-one percent of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [22]

Neither a patriarchal society or a matriarchal society would tolerate fatherless families. Fatherless families have become increasingly normal. Many children do not even know who their biological father is let alone meet with him. Such is the state of female promiscuity, they don’t even know who sired the child. Here is one return out of thousands for a search on “I don’t know who the father is”:

“I had sex with my mum’s boyfriend even though I have one of my own. Now I am pregnant I don’t know who the father is. ... I am seventeen ...”

The seventeen-year-old was in a fatherless home. How on earth did she finish up in the bed of her mother’s boyfriend — the potential stepfather?

The high divorce rate and the tendency to give mothers the custody is destroying the father’s role in society. We now have a generation that calls itself the ‘divorce generation’.

The feminists have radically altered the family without taking responsibility for the problems that it has created. They have created the belief that females can do anything that a male can do. Amongst the many roles that females have not mastered is the role of the father. Even simple logic will show that more than fifty percent of the voting public is female, yet they do not vote for females to run the nation. The females of the nation have the greater voting power, yet they still vote for males. Equality has not been created and women work rather than play. Under Feminist illogic, women claim to be victims, but a situation has been created where men and children become the victims. Women are no longer free, they need to work.

In reality, it is the family that is of paramount importance. This is favoured under both a patriarchal society and a matriarchal society and in each, the other gender is respected in a caring manner. The current gynocentric (female-centric) system is adequately described in the Urban Dictionary definition of Gynocentrism:

“Gynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, ‘woman, female’) is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view and placing it at the center of a political, social, family, or gender context, potentially to the detriment of non-females. The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analyzed.”

What is of most importance is the family unit. Dr. Wilson describes it this way:

“The family is the most important social unit of society. This is a fact that everyone must learn. The family is not only the basic societal unit. It is also the basic sexual unit, the basic child-raising unit, the basic communication unit, and the basic all-around fun and friendship unit.”

We need to prevent the destruction of the family unit on the whim of some propaganda about historical complaint about the actions of any gender. It is imperative that we save the unwritten constitution where the family is the central unit of society and any beef between genders is of secondary consideration. We are not favouring the family if we favour females whilst discarding males to the dustbin. A child needs a mother and a father and civilization will suffer if one gender demands are put before children and families. A power struggle between genders may favour one gender over the other at the complete disregard for children and social harmony.

Freedom is a strange topic. The freed slave no longer got regular food. If the ex-slave could not find work, his family starved. Release from slavery is not all roses. The worker may complain about his work but when he has no work he is in a dire situation. He is in a worse situation than a slave because he gets no food. A wife’s freedom to throw out a husband she had an argument with places the future of the child in jeopardy. The child also has needs and rights and these were, for the most part, catered for under the system where the father was the head of the family. The rights of the child are not well looked after at present.

In the bible you will find:

“The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.” [Proverbs 14:1]

This is almost a recipe for the disaster for women caused by feminism. Here is the marriage rate over the years that feminism has been the guiding force in Western policymaking:

This is a massive shame for the girls that will be denied a traditional family.

US Divorce Rate Through History.

An Urban Dictionary contributor makes an interesting parody titled ‘Gynocentrism/Feminism’ illustrating feminist circular illogic:

Women should be allowed in the army.

Army training should be easier for women so they can be a soldier.

 - - -

Women shouldn’t have to fight on the front line.

Women need to have better equipment and more supplies.

 - - -

Women should get equal money, medals, and praise as all those men did that died.

We need to start a government trust for all the horrible discrimination from combat that women faced in the army.

- etc.

This little news-line just arrived in my inbox, as I was writing this:

Woman ‘wins’ the Boston Marathon and gets $140,000 prize money. Only 142 men beat her.

The ‘trick’ was camouflaged because the start time for the elite women was 0932am but for the elite men, it was 1000am. Tom, an observer worked out that this was equivalent to a five-mile head start.

Whilst talking about gynocentrism, I find some changes in its practice and meaning. Gynocentrism.com describes versions one and two. Gynocentrism One refers to basic instinctual behaviour inherited from our hominid ancestors for prioritizing female reproductive capacity — that is, we tend to protect and provide for women and children as a way to encourage survival of our species, a tendency reinforced by varying local customs throughout history until the Middle Ages, when a confluence of cultural factors came together to create Gynocentrism Two.

Let us look at some feminist circular illogic:

• A girl gets upset when she sees no females in a World War One movie. Girl does not believe in the draft for girls.
• Women who like muscular men are normal. Men that like big breasts are perverts.
• Thinks it is sexist when she is asked to make dinner. Wants the man to fix the car because that is what men do.
• Calls all men sex craved pigs. Complains if men generalize about women.
• Thinks men are sexist. Goes to a woman only gym.
• The male sex drive is the cause of rape, thus all men with healthy libidos are rapists.
• Feminists explain that males explaining is ‘mansplaining’.
• Feminists sprout their opinion — that men should keep their opinion to themselves.
• Men should talk less on college campuses. (Men are already a significant minority on college campuses.
• Women can be freed from the kitchen. Kitchen shows on television become popular. (Many women have given up high-powered careers to concentrate on full-time homemaking.)
• Men are guilty until proven innocent.
• If a man claim to be feminized under ‘gender expression’ is he still part of the evil patriarchy?
• If every man is a potential rapist, then every woman is a potential rapist.
• By propagandizing ‘sexual liberation’ and ‘sexual empowerment’, the propagandists behind feminism sold a dud. Women supposedly should enjoy carefree, commitment-free sexual ‘freedom’ which benefits males whilst denigrating of women and leaving them husbandless. It has inflicted social damage that may never be repaired.

More feminist circular illogic:

• Feminism propagandizes freedom of speech whilst refusing to tolerate dissent.
• Women never lie when they report a sex crime. Men’s word cannot be trusted.
• Rape is any sexual act in which the woman feels ‘violated’.
• Men who deny that there is gender oppression of women are just not aware that they are sexists.

This next quote is given as an English grammar example of ‘circular logic’. I had to read it three times because it appears that even I have become conditioned to accept circular illogic:

“Women should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy, so abortion should be legal.” [11]

Don’t go forward until you understand the circular illogic in the above statement. Illogic abounds in feminism. It destroys basic reasoning skills. MarinaS comments:

“A feminism that shames successful women by calling them whores, then demands they apologise for being hurt, is bulshit.”

Here is another:

“Creative Minority Report noted that Sandra Fluke, she who was made famous by the democrats and their lapdog media by proclaiming that having to spend $10 a month on contraception was an unbearable expense and assault on her liberty (all the while attending Georgetown Law at 30-40k a year)...”

Another political quandary:

“There are thirty-two-million women in the UK. That’s fifty-one percent of the population (a majority). But there are only 147 female MPs (twenty-three percent).”

Thus women are the majority of the population but they vote for male politicians. Did they simply ignore that the prime minister is female? Donald Trump received women’s votes. Little publicized was that Donald Trump was the first to have a female campaign manager. If, for example, women voted for a woman because she was a woman rather than for her policies, it would be the destruction of democracy.

Here is an illogical, ridiculous, and dangerous statement:

Emma Sulkowicz: “If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers.”

Dr. Catharine MacKinnon in her 1987 book ‘Feminism Unmodified’ writes a dangerous statement:

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

Thus sex is rape if the woman does not feel happy even if she gave a full legally acceptable consent.

Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, told Time magazine, whilst discussing the Harvard policy on campus sexual assault complaints, it:

“was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.”

In 1974, Robin Morgan was a prime speaker at Iowa State University. She said that feminists hate men and that feminism was not about equality but about women attaining power. In 1978, she wrote in her book, ‘Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist’:

“I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

I get offended by that because men have revered, looked after, and cared for women through history. If you are not careful, you can start to believe their illogic. Robin Morgan also wrote:

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

This type of hate mongering can only go unchallenged by a complicit media. The statement is heinously sexist. If you were to set up an evil organization you would not call it: “Evil Organization”. You would give it a pleasant name with an idealistic goal whilst carrying out hideously destructive activities.

Christina Sommers: “I think we have to save young women from the feminists.” [Christina Sommers is an associate professor of philosophy at Clark University]

Misandry has become an accepted form of prejudice and discrimination. Professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young agree that misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination has become institutionalized:

“The worldview of our society has become increasingly both gynocentric (focused on the needs and problems of women) and misandric (focused on the evils and inadequacies of men)...We argue that ideological feminists have played an important role in creating the gynocentric worldview and disseminating it.” [13]

Perhaps, they are lucky that they have not been hounded out of their jobs. To add to the madness, feminists are now turning on themselves as the ideology of the ‘trans movement’ under a banner of ‘gender justice’ is being promoted by those in a position to promote. Those feminists who identify with radical feminist principles are being labelled transphobic TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). When the propaganda gets heated, they can be ‘accused’ of supporting a climate of violence against ‘trans’ people. Even a radical feminist author commented:

“But it was disheartening to be reminded that a progressive/liberal orthodoxy on trans issues has left many people afraid to speak.” [12]

So how did men feel when they were shouted down by the radical feminists. They might understand the clever way ‘thought-crime’ has been used as a political tool by those with access to publishing power. Radical feminists were happy enough when they got all the media vocal power. They did not even need to be logical to get their views promoted. They can now be considered guilty of ‘thought-crimes’. As in previous communist states, one group is turned on another through propaganda. The radical feminist is effectively prosecuted by the tyrannical court of propaganda to be doomed to silence under threat of ridicule and denouncement. Logic has been twisted into a reversal of itself for the benefit of those in charge of the propaganda machine, elsewhere called: “Satan’s Pulpit”. The author’s refusal to acknowledge the guilt of standing against trans-reform confirms guilt. The author stands guilty of thought crime. She also adds with this quality logic:

“If the claim of trans people is that they were born into one biological sex category, such as male, but are actually female, what does that mean? Is it a claim that reproduction-based sex categories are an illusion? That one can have a female brain (whatever that means) in a body with male genitalia? That there is a non-material soul that can be of one sex but in the body of the other sex? I struggle to understand what the claim means, and to date, I have read no coherent account and am aware of no coherent theory to explain it. (Note: The concerns of a people born intersex are distinct, raising issues different from the trans movement).” [12]

Society really does not need lunatics whispering in the ears of children: “Perhaps you were born in the wrong body?” It is simply not in the common interest. Nature does not create fifty or so genders. It does create the occasional aberration. The inventing of words that are destined to destroy the exciting relationships between the male and female identity is damaging to all of society.

In the creation of society, we have to recognize that the human male is a ruthless and dangerous predator. He is capable of inflicting terrible damage. When the neocortex brain was added to the human, the result was a being that had intellect as well as strength enabling him to carry out unlimited destruction. The male is naturally inclined towards violence making him a top predator. Foremost on a male’s mind is the desire to reproduce which requires intimate contact with females, preferably fertile females. Most creatures in the animal kingdom have a mating ritual, however, the human with a neocortex follows learned procedures as well as instinctive procedures stored in his reptile brain. One might expect that a male would follow set procedures to mate, however, the neocortex allows divergences from expected behaviour. If violence is not acceptable to the female of the species, then females need to put in place procedures to prevent this. The simplest method might appear to be to lockup any offender. This will lockup any offender after they have committed a rape and act as a disincentive. However, the rape has actually occurred. This system guarantees that rape will occur. The second method is to train the males to behave. If this is done at a late age, the neocortex will allow it to happen if the being thinks he has been unfairly denied access to sex and that he might get away with it. The training is only fully effective if it is done at a very young age. Mothers are the suitable trainers. The male can be a wondrous creator. This capable male is also capable of great laziness. The male can grow from youth to be lazy, creative or destructive or a mix of the three. Laziness can only occur when he is provided for by an abundance or in a welfare state. The male takes from others to provide himself with the necessities of life. A male with creative attitudes requires significant training in motivational environments and can take a long time of devotion and a reduction in happiness. Destruction has the potential to be the happiest state for a male as he takes what he wants from whoever he pleases with little care for the plight of those he plunders. A destructive male adds no value to society whilst removing significant resources from others in an unpleasant manner. It is more appropriate for women to encourage the males to be creative. The male will be one of the three, so it is necessary to push the males to be creative. Females tend not to be so destructive when not occupied, so the primary task in society is to keep the males occupied on creative tasks. Keep those males working long days and let him fix his motorbikes when at home. The females may be creative, but it is more useful to keep males creative so that they do not turn to destruction. So the training of males is crucial to society. The obvious procedure is for the mothers to train them to respect women and motivate them to work hard for women. These rules are embodied in Christian Patriarchy. Patriarchy is a list of expectations on males alone for the purpose of making males work. There are various tactics to encourage male creativity and diligence. Firstly, it is necessary to create a culture of male enthusiasm and discipline. To maintain the creativity, an appropriate environment is needed. Threats and force can be used. But this requires whip-masters and strongmen in an environment of threats and fear. This is less than ideal and the male will only do the minimum necessary to avoid any punishment. He will often retaliate with violence and may prefer death than submission. Such a scenario occurs when there is an unpopular occupying force in a nation or as exists when enslaved. The next approach is to persuade him to work for the staples of life. His direct needs are food, water, shelter, entertainment, and sex. These match the feelings of hunger, thirst, sleep, curiosity, and sex-drive. His sex-drive may be satisfied with prostitutes or porn. He will work long enough to obtain these basics but he might prefer more leisure to more creative work. Young males are in this category. They don’t worry about turning up on time if they had an entertaining night and lacked sleep. They are unconcerned about their fitness for work. The next motivating force is to give him the responsibility of a wife and children. He will now work extremely hard to provide for his wife and offspring. To encourage this landscape, he is told that he is head of the family and that he ... is entirely responsible for their provisioning and security. Responsibility has always been the key driver of males and is a factor lost to the illogical ideals of communism, Marxism, and its reincarnation — feminism. Girls are encouraged to choose the best provisioner. The male becomes rewarded for his provisioning skills with the pick of the females without the resort to fist-fighting. Society gives him status as a good father and a good family man. He gets the better housing and a stylish form of transport. Women may work, but if the males are programmed to work, work, work, the females can lead the café lifestyle. The system requires a whole of society culture that laziness and destruction are not acceptable. All males are required to be creative and avoid leisure and destruction.

In a society breakdown, destruction takes precedence and leisure degenerates to the taking of advantage of others which leads to an increase in rape, prostitution, and crime in the wake of civil disturbance, revolution, or war. Women suffer terribly under situations of chaos and so it is essential for women to maintain through culture the working enthusiasm of men. Christian Patriarchy was the method that women used to do this in the West. It is otherwise called the Christian value system. Even as the feminism has decimated the Christian church, the value system is still being taught by mothers, but as this training wanes, the Christian West will degenerate to be replaced by another system waiting in the wings. But it will never be as good as the Christian Patriarchy which was unusually good for women.

To create the families for the creative males, it is necessary to bind one man to one woman. It is certain who is the mother of a child, but in promiscuous times, it is unclear about the father. So, it is essential to ensure that the female is not promiscuous so that the male invests heavily in the children. He invests so heavily that he pledges his ‘undying love’ to the girl which translates to an undertaking that he will provision her and her offspring for the rest of his working life. He thus pledges the entirety of his future income to the girl. The girl is provisioned for life on the basis that she only screws one male. The crucial component to gain the man’s commitment is female fidelity. This was the magnificent invention that created civilisation. The incentivization to ensure males choose marriage is to ensure that sex is only available through marriage. A female cartel is required where females only allow sex when the male pledges subservience and all future income to the female. Thus, the religions support monogamy. It is the tying of one male to one woman that enables civilization. Thus the male is kept occupied and creative by the simple expedient of marriage. This is the reason for the strict traditions on sex outside of marriage. If sex is unavailable outside marriage, the male desire for sex maintains the popularity of family-life. The male’s destructive tendencies are kept at bay. His laziness tendencies are kept at bay. The incidence of murder, rape, violence, theft, and crime are all kept at bay by keeping him busy catering for his family. Patriarchy was the system where the male was placed at the head of the family where he would make decisions that favoured women over men. Women benefited by avoiding the stress associated with decision making in an incredible procedure where the male would make all decisions in her favour. The males collectively ensured that the woman was not required to work in society. The males worked their lives for females. The women let the men run the factories and the politics because all male effort was directed to the benefit of women. Women did not try to run the country because they did not need to. Males ran it for them. The males ran everything for the benefit of women and their offspring. The intense motherly training and the busy creative activities of the males kept their destructive tendencies at bay. Males got sexual access without fighting provided they worked creatively. The marriage of one man to one woman is the basis of civilization. For this to work, it is necessary for society to control female sexual behaviour. It was not patriarchy that controlled women. Women controlled patriarchy. Women taught patriarchy to young boys for the benefit of womankind. Women controlled young women’s sexual behaviour to maintain the cartel. At eighteen, the girl was put in tempting fine dresses to tease the young males to make a move, whilst at the same time told to keep their legs closed and keep his wandering hands at bay. He walks home each night with his legs apart. He soon gives in and somehow pledges a life of obedience and his entire future income to her upkeep. Unbelievable sales tactics. The girls were encouraged to be sexually restrictive so that they could get a man to work his life for them. Women chose fidelity to join in the magic of patriarchy. Female fidelity enabled male servility. Without their own little working male slave, a woman would be in the undignified situation where she would have to go work herself. So a family and a daughter would go to great lengths to demonstrate her fidelity to join this great system that got males slaving for females. The males were restricted more than the females. They were taught to honour and respect females as the gentle sex which then enabled the girls to take the easy path whilst the males went to work in a coalmine. Males were trained to hide all emotion and tough things out when a situation was adverse. Males were trained that working their whole life was their ‘lot’. Servicing females was their role in society. Males were told that they were the head of the family but in practice, they did everything for their wives and family. ‘She who must be obeyed’ is the common male joke. They satisfied their wives’ every whim. The wives did not demand. They suggested what they would like and the man complied. It took time and skill to develop a society where the males were so placid and so good to women. It is clear that men are generally kind, caring, and protective of women. It is a system that is easily broken. It is wrong to say that patriarchy was men running things to benefit males and to oppress women. It was the opposite. It was males running things in a selfless manner to the total benefit of women. Men wanted to make the world a better place — a better place for women. The training for patriarchy kept male violence harnessed as creativity for the benefit of women. When not harnessed, males tend to be violent. Women get upset when the males get violent. Current women do not appreciate the centuries of effort that went into setting up this system that had the males working for the benefit of women. As my mother said: “I could see it was going a bit wrong when you boys became teenagers.” This was the late sixties. When societies procedures are upset, murder, violence, rape, arson, looting, and war become normalized. As our current patriarchy is being destroyed, we can see that the males are moving towards laziness and destruction. Male unemployment is growing. Young males are failing to kick-start into motivation and creativity. The jails are filling up. Women are complaining about male behaviour. Males are forgoing the family and accessing sex outside of marriage or simply forgoing sex with females altogether, although they may be utilizing virtual alternatives. The male is creating for himself an era of personal consumption and entertainment. In the USA, the destruction of patriarchy in the black community is witnessed by the low marriage rate and high rate of single-parent families. This is accompanied by a high incarceration rate. In our damaged society, almost all major crime is committed by unmarried males. Men simply do not ‘tow the line’ until they have a woman to keep them in order. Males often call her the ‘one who must be obeyed’ which gives a demonstration of who is really in charge. Women had an incredible but indirect power in a patriarchy. Women controlled by proxy designating the men to make favourable decisions on their behalf. The women of the West always had the opportunity to work and many did, but most chose not to work or gave up on the idea when they realized how difficult it was. Even in current times, women are choosing shorter working weeks.