Home > Forum > Ask a Guy > AMERICAN WOMEN ARE CUNTS
  • 1
Page:
AuthorPost

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

**This Post's rating is below the threshold. View Post

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -2 | Down
Reply

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

There was a time when women would stand on street corners for something other than prostitution. They would stand in droves and chant silly rhymes and riddles in the cold, burn undergarments — some would even hold signs proclaiming loudly to the world that women were “equal” or as “able” as a man.

It was a silly time to be sure, and it was also a much different time to today.

Women still stand on street corners for reasons other than prostitution (even though this particular one is dressed like one), but when they hold up signs they say things like:

“Need $$ for BOOB JOB.”

With that, please welcome November’s Honorary Man of the Month!

Sarah “B cups” Buckley is a role model for women — if women could have one of those, that is. Of all the possessions on Earth, the only one that a woman does not ever want is a shinny new Role Model. Women all think that they are born perfect. And that might as well be true because they’re not going to change a goddamn thing about themselves ever anyway, so fuck it. That’s why men are so much better than women, because we grow up idolizing role models like Batman, a dashing crime fighter; or Perry Mason, a slightly less dashing crime fighter. It gives us direction and makes us better people.

Recently, Miss November stood out on a cold street corner in some big city (I think Boston, but I didn’t her rambling article in entirety) with the sign I mentioned earlier in the hopes of raising funds that would better her quality of life. Now here’s the kicker: she goes to MIT.

See, this is what I’ve been saying all along. Education and especially higher education is completely wasted on women.

Besides, MIT? Isn’t that school all about science? Please. Step away from the chalk and put your hands on your head. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

How many degrees does it take for a woman to do the most significant thing she can do with her life: have a kid? It takes zero degrees. It just takes a half dozen men around to take care of all the difficult work, like delivering the baby and paying for a nanny when the obligations of watching a child watch TV become too stressful for a woman’s delicate sensibilities. She’s got a whole potential life to invent that she sacrificed for the child after all. And that takes work.

What Sarah “Not so Busty” Buckley has shown here is not necessarily courage in the face of adversity from a feminized society, but desperation against the very same — desperation for a future that is not pounding a round peg into a square hole (that’s a man’s job after all. I think we all know what I’m talking about), and desperation for the tools that will get her there; not a degree from some manstitution like MIT, but a set of jaw dropping jubblies.

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

The following question was sent to me by a reader Erik.

Here in America prostitution is illegal, yet pornography is completely okay so long as all participants are eighteen and over. This is what confuses me: Is pornography (that is to say, intercourse between two parties) not the same as prostitution?

Why is prostitution illegal?

Good question, Erik. Now prepare your mind for a mantomic explosion of answer.

Prostitution is illegal because women hate the fuck out of each other.

Men love women. I’m a man and I love women so much I would have sex with all of them if I could. Even the fat ones.

Fat women are like dessert trolleys. They’re stuffed with desserts and they’re no good in the sack.

Let’s look at the facts.

Men give women free cars and free money so women can drive to the mall and blow that free money on useless bullshit. That’s nice of us. Men also built strip clubs and Hooters so women can easily put themselves through medical school. Again, quite nice of us. Do you know how much money strippers make every night for doing almost nothing? Like two grand. That’s just more good old benevolent men footing the tab at the foot of the stage. Men are like fire hoses of altruism. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got the window closed, we’re busting it the fuck down with generosity. Clean yourself up.

That’s where prostitution comes in. Men invented prostitution so no woman anywhere would ever have a single problem in her life.

Unless you call too much sex a problem!

Women’s magazines, women’s financial manuals (which include such gems as: be more confident when asking for a raise. While you’re at it, grow a penis, honey jugs. That’s about as likely as a woman growing a backbone), and women’s fitness classes, are all full of lady-problems solved very easily by man’s first invention: prostitution.

Prostitut ion is the only way in the world you can get free money. You don’t even have to stand in line like you do for welfare. Prostitution comes to you.

Have a bite of this logical Manwich.

All women use prostitution to get free sushi without batting an eye. Sushi is fucking expensive. Ergo, women use prostitution to get free money. Or is every woman at a sushi bar somehow not a prostitute?

The reason prostitution is illegal is women hate seeing other women having it easy. Remember how many women called Anna Nichole Smith a whore when she married that old rich guy? Look at how many women hate Heather Mills. Yes, Heather Mills is a cunt, but women don’t know that. They just hate Heather Mills because she has it easy.

Women are nature’s spanner. Once you’ve got some shit together and some man cogs lined up cranking out the good times, in is chucked a woman and mucked go your gears. That’s what women did with prostitution.

I think that’s what the Bible means allegorically speaking when it says Eve ruined the Garden of Eden. Prostitution was busy solving all the problems of womankind while men solved their own, but women had to go and wreck it with a fucking fascist crusade. I don’t know what the apple means as a metaphor though. Maybe it just represents something shiny. Women will do anything for shiny.

If you really want the whole scoop here, I can only recommend the following. Pay the next woman you’re going to have sex with 20 bucks before you do. And make sure she knows what it’s for.

You’ll thank me for it.

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

Women Stop Learning in 8th Grade
Recently, I had the misfortune of hearing a woman’s thoughts on the world:

“You know, Shakespeare said all lawyers should be killed and the world would be better.”

I don’t remember how she said it exactly or what her fucking point was, but that’s my nearest approximation of how a poorly educated fifth grade student would say something about Shakespeare. That is how women talk and think with their brains after all — like poorly educated fifth graders.

This brings me to my point. Women don’t learn shit after 8th grade. They should be allowed to go home straightaway.

Think about it for yourself. Every time you’re in a discussion about anything from art to politics, where do women try to ham-fistedly steer the conversation? What are their remarks? 100% of the time, you’ll find them spouting some bullshit about Shakespeare or Camus (or The Classics depending on which side of the sea you’re suffering the feminine mouth), but it’s all the fucking same. It’s all shit you were required to learn to pass the eighth fucking grade.

Quoting shit that is required learning at some point in everyone’s life only makes you look smart if you’re in the fucking Congo — not at my house. Does demonstrating the proper use of a lighter or a mirror make you look like some kind of magical bullshit shaman? Well apparently it does if you’re a woman. Apparently that’s how it works. Everyone’s got to pretend to be fucking stupid for ten minutes while you point out the moral of Great Expectations. Fuck off.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a novelty in the 8th grade. Look at how smart I am! I can quote something from a play that was written hundreds of years ago and loosely tie it to a modern day event! Good for me! Hooray school!

Fuck school.

School is great while you’re in it, but as a man, when you’re out you shut the fuck up about it. See, women’s brains fill like baby bottles by the time they’ve hit grade eight. Sure a few might make it into the second week or so of 9th, but ultimately the smaller female mind is not built to finish public education.

It’s because of their hormones, obviously. At some point women are too obsessed with sex to concentrate long enough to learn anything new — things like learning how to read a map or balancing the checkbook, or shutting the fuck up to avoid embarrassing everyone who’s ever known you.

You know what else Shakespeare said?

“Do you not know I am a woman? when I think, I must speak.”

But “As You Like It” isn’t part of the primary school curriculum is it. Fuck off.

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

The feminist movement has had an immense effect on American culture, laws, education and social relationships. A principal tenet of the doctrine of Political Correctness, feminism is the prevailing dogma on university campuses and in the book industry. The feminists are powerful enough in the media, in schools and colleges, and in politics and government to intimidate most of their opposition, especially men.
The best book that methodically challenges the feminist ideology is Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility. She does a brilliant job of refuting the feminist ideologues' tiresome tirades. Check out any library under "women" and you will find that Mrs. Graglia's book is pitted against hundreds of feminist volumes. Phyllis Schlafly's The Power of the Positive Woman, published in 1977, is long since out of print and was censored by the libraries when it was in print.

But refuting feminist ideology is not enough. It is necessary to have intelligent critiques of feminist behavior, hypocrisies, language, and political and social activism. We need exposés of the ripple effects of their ideology in the laws that were changed during the last generation, in their proposals that were defeated, in debates in legislatures, in the scripting of television programs and movies, in the social experimentation in our armed services, in day-to-day social relationships, and in the changing attitudes and roles of men and women.

A few brave women have tackled limited parts of this movement; e.g., Suzanne Fields' wonderful columns in the Washington Times, some delicious dissections of feminist hypocrisies by Ann Coulter, Christina Hoff Sommers' dissertations on the feminists' war against boys, and several books exposing the double standards in the military. Criticisms of feminism are conspicuously absent from the writings of otherwise prolific male authors and commentators, and the few who have tried it have suffered career-damaging retaliation.

Years ago, I subscribed to a newsletter of timely jokes written by a successful practitioner of clean one-line comedy. I got tired of the abundance of jokes about dumb wives and wrote the author that I would cancel my subscription unless he gave equal time to jokes about feminists, whose antics and remarks are far funnier. He never answered me -- he didn't dare face the wrath of the feminists, knowing they have no sense of humor.

My new book called Feminist Fantasies (just published by Spence Publishing Company in Dallas) is the first book that tackles the feminists where the rubber meets the road -- on the battlefields of television and radio talk shows, in legislative hearings, and in college courses. The book consists of 92 of my essays on feminism written over the past thirty years chronicling how the feminists spewed their anti-family message in the media, in state capitols, and on university campuses. These essays show how their destructive dogmas took root in our culture and led many young women down the primrose path to a lonely, barren life.

The St.Louis Post-Dispatch ran a four-column news article this year about an aging feminist, a 30-year member of the National Organization for Women, who is still pouting because in the 1960s she was called a stewardess instead of an airline attendant. She showed the reporter her scrapbook of treasured pictures -- not of any grandchildren, but of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug and Florence Kennedy. Pathetically, she fantasizes that the Equal Rights Amendment will make her happy.

Feminist Fantasies provides a unique look at feminism from the battlefield where the action is -- where I've been for the past thirty years. It takes you inside the controversies of the feminist movement from its heyday in the 1970s through its second and third waves. No other book explains how feminist dogma has been translated into political strategy and tactics, federal and state legislation, litigation to invite judicial activism, movie and television scripts, newspaper features, military regulations, college courses and school textbooks. No other book provides a reasoned criticism of feminist follies in every aspect of the culture.

Feminist Fantasies shows how the feminists captured the media, including its famous talking heads, and converted television into a maker of social trends rather than a reporter or a mirror of real life. I trace the feminist campaign to reinvent the family in their own image through television talk shows and sitcoms, movies made by Hollywood and for television, music from opera to rock, newspaper news and editorials, art, advertising, and business magazines.

Feminist Fantasies tackles the contradictory goals of feminism: equality plus preferential treatment. It explains the feminists' devious devices to achieve power in the workplace through deceitful sloganeering such as "comparable worth" and "glass ceiling." It exposes how the feminists define equality as access to tax-funded abortions and same-sex marriages. It tells about their campaigns to restructure the American legal system, to pursue their global goals, to enforce double standards, and to use academia to locate and train recruits for their cause. It describes the feminists' identity crisis.

Feminist Fantasies should be must reading for every young woman. It's a vaccine against the contagious disease of feminism. I dare the Women's Studies departments of colleges and universities to use it to balance the scores of feminist books customarily assigned to brainwash female students. The foreword by Ann Coulter underscores this book's importance.

This book shows how the longtime feminist goal of a gender-neutral society was the motivation behind the campaigns for the Equal Rights Amendment and for the feminization of the military. Feminist goals are incompatible with the combat readiness we need in times of war, a priority that has taken on a new urgency because of events since 9/11. The brave firefighters who charged up the towers of the World Trade Center, and our Special Forces who dared to enter the caves in Afghanistan, need our help to defend themselves and their work against the feminists who despise macho men.

The feminists' goal is to eradicate from our culture everything that is masculine and remake us into a gender-neutral society. We see their handiwork in textbook revision and in the constant haranguing by the language gestapo to force us to use such gender-neutral idiocies as he/she. We see this in the war on boys through abolishing recess, overprescribing Ritalin, and the zero tolerance policies that forbid them to play cops and robbers. We see this in the sex integration of Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel, which was a battle not for sex equality but to eliminate macho men. We see this in the implementation of Title IX, which is used not to give women equal opportunity in colleges but as a vehicle to abolish wrestling teams and other sports in which men outperform women.

The feminists showcased their goal in the New York Times Sunday Style section on November 3, 2002. The headline was "She's Got to Be a Macho Girl," and the subtitle was: "In a role reversal, teenage girls are the aggressors when it comes to boys." The article boasted about "the trickle-down effects of feminism" which have taught teenage girls to initiate sex "in a more aggressive manner." One high school senior pontificated: "No one is a stay-at-home mom anymore. Women don't have to wear skirts. We are empowered and we can do whatever we want."

The feminists constantly intimidate men with their assault on the English language. When Mitt Romney, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, called the histrionics of his Democratic feminist opponent "unbecoming," the feminists exploded in tantrums of accusations that he had used a sexist word. Actually, since unbecoming means unattractive and creating an unfavorable impression, the word is most apt to politely describe a feminist politician. As Harry Truman used to say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Feminist Fantasies offers hope and moral support to women who want to liberate themselves from feminist dogmas and build a traditional family. The book does not recite platitudes on how to be a good wife and mother. Instead, it provides intellectual ammunition to help young women refute their contemporaries who disdain marriage and motherhood. My lectures on hundreds of college campuses, which attract large crowds, prove that students have never heard the facts and arguments about feminism that I have the nerve to present to hostile audiences.

Understanding feminism requires knowledge of how the feminists coopted our culture and built their political power. Feminist Fantasies tells this never-before-told history through critical commentaries that contemporaneously addressed feminist issues during the past thirty years. No other book in print deals head-on with feminism like Feminist Fantasies.


How the Feminists Built Their Power
If you wonder how the feminists are able to wield so much clout with politicians, the explanation is in a new book called Guide to Feminist Organizations. As Midge Decter says in her foreword, this book is long overdue, and we thank Capital Research Center and author Kimberly Schuld for providing such a useful tool.

By setting forth the facts about 35 feminist groups, this guide clarifies how the radical feminists built their political power so that they are falsely touted by the media as the voice of "women," even though all polls show that the big majority of women reject the label "feminist." The feminists did it by organization, networking and lots of money, much of which came from leftwing foundations, corporations headed by weak-kneed executives, and grants of taxpayer funds.

The feminist groups detailed in the guide include the noisy activist organizations, the decades-old women's groups that had respectable reputations until they were captured by the feminists, the think tanks that grind out dubious data to fortify feminist follies, and the abortion-propaganda groups masquerading under the euphemism "women's health." Networking keeps them "on message" and well-funded. Feminist organizations even demand that government fund their ideologies and themselves, and transfer to feminists the power they think that men now enjoy.

These groups may appear to have different missions, but they have a common ideology: Women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society, and all men are guilty both individually and collectively. Women's problems are not personal but societal, and require constitutional, legislative or litigious remedies.

First among these activists is the National Organization for Women (NOW), which spent $5,292,025 in 2000. Loud and brassy, NOW lobbies for feminist and pro-abortion legislation, organizes protest rallies, initiates lawsuits, and always backs Democratic Party candidates and proposals. The NOW agenda supports all abortion rights including partial-birth abortion, gay and lesbian rights, worldwide legalization of prostitution, and unrestricted access to pornography in libraries. According to the guide, "NOW revels in attacking Christianity and traditional values, conservative ideas and men," with Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Promise Keepers their favorite targets.

NOW gave unquestioning support to Bill Clinton despite his shabby sexual shenanigans. Tammy Bruce, former president of the Los Angeles NOW, spilled the beans about how Clinton bought NOW's support with taxpayer grants for "tobacco control" from the Department of Health and Human Services: "California NOW and National NOW received three-quarters of a million dollars ($767,099) during the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals."

The League of Women Voters abandoned its former credibility and became a federally funded lobby to expand the size of government so that it can accommodate expensive feminist programs. The League, which spent $4,620,246 in 2000, supports gun control, abortion access, universal health care, more environmental regulation, and increased power for the United Nations.

The American Association of University Women turned itself into a vehicle to promote off-the-wall feminist hypotheses that aren't taken seriously even in the academic world. AAUW spent $9,512,044 in 2000.

The feminists use the YWCA to teach radical feminism to the next generation. The Girl Scouts went feminist after they took Betty Friedan on their board; they dropped "loyalty" from the oath, began a condom-friendly sex-ed program, and made belief in God optional.

Most of the activist feminist organizations have 501(c)(3) sister groups with interlocking directors. They pursue the same agenda, including government-funded daycare, paid entitlements for family leave, unrestricted access to abortion, comparable worth, lesbian rights, affirmative action, universal health insurance, and anti-male implementation of Title IX. As the Guide states, "It's hard to see where NOW political lobbying ends and NOW Foundation education activity begins."

Funding for feminist foundations comes from many sources that ought to know better. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has raked in corporate donations from a long list topped by ABC, AT&T, American Express, Chase Manhattan, Colgate-Palmolive, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, New York Times Foundation, Revlon, Saks, and New York brokerage houses; from Ford, Rockefeller and other wealthy foundations; and $1,678,252 in government grants since 1996 given by the Clinton Administration. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund boasted income of $7,318,269 in 2000.

Such vast amounts of money are used to develop political clout and enable the feminists to raise and spend millions of dollars in political campaigns. EMILY's List, which contributes only to Democratic pro-abortion feminist candidates, spent more than $20 million in the 2002 election cycle and is the largest political action committee, twice as large as the union that is second largest.

This political money has translated into a stranglehold on the Democratic Party and sycophantic cheerleading for radical feminist politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and their clones running in 2002. Follow the money and you will understand why Democratic Senators don't dare to cast any vote or make any off-hand remark that could be construed as interfering with the feminist or pro-abortion agenda. EMILY's List website boasts that Tom Daschle said, "The reason I'm here today as Senate Majority Leader can be said in two words: EMILY's List." Rep. Nancy Pelosi said, "I know that I would not ... be the Democratic Whip of the House without the work that was done by EMILY's List."


Hooray for Hootie!
At last we have a real man who can resist the histrionics of the pushy feminists. It's so refreshing to know that somewhere there is an American man willing to stand his ground -- on any issue -- and tell the feminists he is not going to knuckle under to their nagging, extortion, pressure tactics or media tantrums.

William Johnson, known to friends as Hootie, is the president of the Augusta National Golf Club located in northeastern Georgia which has hosted the world's most famous golf tournament, the Masters, ever since 1934. A pushy outfit called the National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO) has been trying to force the all-male golf club to alter its admissions policy and admit women. The feminists are not appeased by the fact that women can play golf on the Augusta National course; they demand to be members of the club.

Hootie responded by saying the club will not submit to pressure to change its admissions policy from an "outside group with its own agenda." Calling NCWO's tactics "offensive and coercive," he added, "We will not be bullied, threatened or intimidated. We do not intend to become a trophy in their display case."

Bully for Hootie! He probably read the Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts v. Dale, wherein the high court upheld the right of private associations to set their own membership rules.

The New York Times says that Hootie "counterpunched with harsh words and a complete resistance to bowing to the demands." The reporter must have been shocked, shocked that any man has the nerve to counterpunch against the feminists (even though the feminists have been claiming for years that they want to be treated like men instead of ladies).

The NCWO manifested its malicious streak by going to Coca-Cola, IBM and Citigroup to demand that they terminate their corporate sponsorship of the Masters tournament unless the Augusta National Golf Club changes its policy. The NCWO got easy help from its feminist friends in the media who then targeted only Hootie, but not the NCWO, as "defiant" and "angry" (words of the Associated Press), and as "defiant" and "combative" (words of the New York Times).

Hootie then announced that the club would cancel commercial advertising on the televised 2003 Masters tournament in order to protect the corporations from the feminists' wrath. The Masters tournament already gets the highest television ratings, and its fans will cheer the delightful prospect of watching a sports event without any commercials.

Maybe Hootie suspected that the corporate executives wouldn't have the stamina to stand up to the feminists. He's probably right. Most corporation executives get wobbly in the knees when the feminists start chanting their mantra "discrimination" and accusing the men of "sexism."

The feminists tried to use Tiger Woods, who won the Masters in 2002 for the third time, as a prop in their publicity stunt to advance their special-interest agenda. When asked what he thinks about Augusta National's rules, Tiger replied with the good sense that has made him a star and a role-model: "They're entitled to set up their own rules the way they want them."

British golfers also kept their eyes on the ball. A spokesman for the Royal & Ancient Golf Club, which runs the British Open at Muirfield where women are excluded as members, commented, "We take the Open to the best links in the British Isles. We don't engage in social engineering."

Under the Clinton Administration, the feminists made athletics one of the arrows in their campaign to emasculate America. They co-opted Title IX for their own agenda, sabotaging its original purpose of ensuring equal educational opportunity for women and turning it into a weapon to force the abolition of scores of college men's wrestling, track and gymnastics teams.

The feminists have been crowing that recent achievements by women athletes are the happy result of Title IX. But when a reporter asked for a comment on Title IX from Jennifer Capriati, one of the best women tennis players in the world, she replied, "I have no idea what Title IX is. Sorry."

The name of the National Council of Women's Organizations is a misnomer because it's not a "women's" council, it's a feminist council. The all-women's organizations I belong to wouldn't belong to it.

The NCWO has typical feminist goals such as Senator Barbara Boxer's current passion: ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). NCWO members are probably hoping to be named to CEDAW's Article 17 Committee of "experts" to monitor compliance so they can harass Hootie with UN backing.

NCWO's extremist feminist goals also include affirmative action for women, ratification of the long-defunct Equal Rights Amendment, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights legislation, government wage control camouflaged as "pay equity," the Clintonista feminists' use of Title IX, and government babysitting services. Its goals parallel those of the National Organization for Women and Eleanor Smeal's Feminist Majority, two of its member groups.


------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ --

Phyllis Schlafly, the president of Eagle Forum, was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, the Equal Rights Amendment. She is America's most articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, and she has lectured or debated on over 500 college campuses. She is the author or editor of 20 books on subjects as varied as politics (A Choice Not An Echo), family and feminism (The Power of the Positive Woman), child care (Who Will Rock the Cradle?), nuclear strategy (Strike From Space and Kissinger on the Couch), education (Child Abuse in the Classroom and Turbo Reader). Her monthly newsletter called The Phyllis Schlafly Report is now in its 36th year. Her syndicated columns and daily radio commentaries can be read and heard live on Eagle Forum's website: www.eagleforum.org. Mrs. Schlafly is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School and her Master's in Political Science from Harvard University. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

mast2008

Joined: 5/5/2008

Why I, as an ardent anti-feminist, feel sorry for women
By Erin Pizzey

I feel sorry for women of my generation who were tricked into believing that the so-called women's movement had anything to offer women except tears.

Professor Ruth Wisse from Harvard, has this to say about the women's movement......... 'By defining relationships between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.'

I believe that the women's movement internationally has been the most extreme and the most influential cause of the destruction of family life in this century. The history of this movement goes back to the early sixties in America when the women's liberation movement was born out of the rage and frustration of American women working along side men in the left wing movements that were sweeping across the western world. Like many women of my age, I was transfixed by the writings of feminist gurus. I passionately believed in the message that was being touted through the pages of newspapers. The seductive message was that women were going to cease to fight and to compete with each other. We were going to come together to improve our role in society and to take advantage of choices that would enable us to compete in the work place, if we so wished. We would be given control over our bodies and be able to make our own decisions over abortion.

To this end we were invited to attend conferences where 'a new future for women' would be revealed.

What was all too quickly revealed was an agenda that made my blood run cold. Hundreds of women, all white, mostly middle class and largely from academia, assured us that they had the solutions to all our problems. My problem as I saw it, was that I had recently moved into Hammersmith and was suffering from a great deal of isolation. I supposed that the women's movement was geared towards helping women, like myself, at home with small children, to learn to reach out to others in our communities.

I was very wrong. It soon became obvious that the women's movement was bent on infiltrating and destroying family life. The enemy I needed to identify was behind my own front door. Useless to protest that my husband paid our mortgage and enabled me to stay at home full time to be with my two small children. I was howled down and ridiculed. Within a matter of months after that first conference the subject of women's liberation had become so fashionable that very few women would dare even suggest that they were happy to be at home and even less likely to admit that they were happily married.

Some newspapers, through their women's pages, and virtually all magazines carried their new 'deal' for women. Marriage and family life were little more than gulags where women languished, forced to service the bestial needs of men. Women, in this brave new world, were now fueled with the information that women's sexual needs, denied them for so many generations by selfish and controlling men, were now paramount. Overnight the roles changed and men no longer were the pursuer but became the pursued. The pill took care of any consequences and old fashioned morality was thrown on the scrap heap. Chivalry towards women by men was met with sullen rudeness and men began to feel the chill wind of universal female dislike. Maleness became radically unfashionable. Little boys were to be brainwashed into abandoning their traditional games and toys and encouraged to adopt 'femaleness.' Men were to be redesigned and repackaged into 'new men.'

Many men, at first, responded with cries of delight. Blinded by lust and the lure of relationships without any responsibility, many men fully concurred with the women's movement. Slowly, as women moved into positions of power, men began to feel the iron fist of the women's movement on their backs.

Today, millions of men look back at the devastation this movement created in their lives. Publicly derided as useless, feckless idle wasters, men have retreated into their holes to lick their wounds. A generation of young men in their early twenties is now adrift in a sea of misandry. They are regularly exposed as less able than their sisters and pilloried as academic failures by the press. No wonder they turn to mental illness, suicide and drugs. Their feminist mothers, in many cases with multiple sexual partners, have abandoned their role as care givers. Children come home to empty rooms, empty fridges and no warmth. These are the children of the 'nobody home' generation. The feminist movement decreed that all women must enter the work force and hand their young children over to the care of the 'mother' state. As the divorce rates soar, men refuse to make any commitment that ties them to women who, when they are bored with the relationship, will boot the men out and keep the money and the children.

The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women. Our daughters did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of women heaped upon the shoulders of men. The feminisation of the schools where all male efforts were seen as malignant. The natural attraction between boys and girls described as 'sexual harassment,' and the terrible loss of tenderness and romance that has been leached out of the lives of women.

What we have left, thanks to this evil movement, is a vast number of lone women trying to keep what is left of family life going. They never asked to be foot soldiers in what has become a feminazi army. They were not blessed with skills and college degrees that gave them economic power to make decisions when they were abandoned by their men. They believed that the feminist movement was going to offer them choices. What they did not understand was that there were never any choices. Men, realizing that they had been cast in the role of sexual monsters, retaliated. Those that didn't pitch into the war of the sexes with relish, simply faded away. Women facing the new millennium have few choices. One of them must be to take back our homes and our families from the clutch of the feminist movement.

Fight back against the ridicule heaped upon men. Those men are our sons and hopefully, our future son-in-laws. Where are the men and women who want to preserve family life in this country? Are they willing to stand up and be counted?

_____________________________< br>Erin Pizzey founded the women's shelter movement; starting the first modern women's refuge in Chiswick, London, England, in 1971.

Posts: 892

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

HEART QUEEN

Joined: 12/9/2008

Writing a book?

Posts: 1636

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

I am, we should just leave your life story out and call it a mystery.

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: I am, we should just leave your life story out and call it a mystery.
Shut up you coward!

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

Reply to: Shut up you coward!
Address?

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: Address?
You've got it, now get on a plane you jelly spined punk.

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

Real men aren't cowards.

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: Real men aren't cowards.
You are not a real man because you have no courage and no honor. You are a COWARD!

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

You're sexist and a coward. Proof that's who you are and your address?

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: You're sexist and a coward. Proof that's who you are and your address?
Are you a total idiot? I gave it to you, you just trying to be brave on each thread? You have no courage and you have no honor. You are a liar and a coward!

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

Proof?

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: Proof?
Muted you are not a man. You have no courage and you have no honor. You are a liar and a coward! Get on a plane!

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

Proof? I didn't ask for you to prove you're stupid, you do that plenty enough.
Proof [of your address/existance]?

Aww , a new copy & paste obsession! <3
... Even more change! You're like Obama now. :D

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply

LiveToLove

Joined: 1/12/2009

Reply to: Proof? I didn't ask for you to prove you're stupid, you do that plenty enough. ...
Muted you are not a man. You have no courage and you have no honor. You are a liar and a coward! Get on a plane you spineless jellyfish!

Posts: 3550

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | 0 | Down
Reply

Muted

Joined: 5/14/2009

Proof? I didn't ask for you to prove you're stupid, you do that plenty enough.
Proof [of your address/existance]?

Aww , a new copy & paste obsession! <3

Posts: 39285

Posted 6 years ago
Rate: Up | -1 | Down
Reply
Back to Top
  • 1
Page: