MASCULIST PERSPECTIVE

A Masculist Response to Feminist Claims

An abridged version for publication on the Net

by Craig Conway of UKMM and FNF

Anyone interested in publishing this book should contact the author.


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

CONTENTS

PART 0 - WHAT IS POWER AND OPPRESSION ?

The Feminist Perspective

PART 1 - Institutional and Domestic Power

1.0 Introduction (The Average man v the Elite Ruler)

1.1 Lifestyle choices (To be a breadwinner, or not to be . . . )

1.2 Dad’s Stress - (Workhorse stress & Breadwinner Stress)

1.3 The benefits of the caring lifestyle (Mum's perks)

1.4 Dad’s who attempt to swap roles in mid-life (catch 22)

1.5 Summary

PART 2 - Physical Power

2.0 Introduction

2.1 The ‘Violent Men’ Slur (The Average man v the Thug)

2.2 How the average man protects, (not attacks), women

2.3 Summary

PART 3 - Sexual Power

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Courtship (The Average man v the Lunatic Pervert)

3.2 Marriage (and getting down on one knee !)

3.3 Pregnancy (and consent denial)

3.4 Adultery (and deceit)

3.5 Divorce (and your home)

3.6 Custody (and your kids)

3.7 Access (and access obstruction)

3.8 Summary

PARTS 4, 5 and 6 - not available in this abridged version for the web.


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

PART 0

WHAT IS ‘POWER’ AND ‘OPPRESSION’ ?

According to Feminism ?

Feminists use the words ‘power’ and ‘oppression’ frequently. They use these words lightly and glibly. But what do these words actually mean ? Let's consider the popular sense in which they're used :

First, ‘power’ equals ‘Institutional power’. Since the times of Queen Victoria, industrial society has defined power as ‘institutional power’. The power to rule institutions. The power to rule companies. The power to rule churches. The power to rule the police. The power to rule parliament. The power to rule the courts.

Feminism has automatically endorsed this classical definition of power, and equated power with ‘ruling’ the institutions.

Second, ‘power’ equals ‘domestic power’. Feminists view nurturing children as an inferior role to institutional work. Their perception is that ruling an institution is powerful, whereas nurturing and rearing children, is power-less.

Third, ‘power’ equals ‘physical power’ i. e. the ability to overwhelm a person or nation in a physical conflict.

Fourth, ‘power’ equals ‘sexual power’ i. e. the ability of one gender to impose its sexual will on the other gender.

Next, let’s define the word ‘oppression’. There is lots of talk about the ‘oppression’ of minorities. Feminist propaganda often cites a connection between ‘women, blacks, and gays’ as examples of oppressed minorities.

The word ‘oppression’ has been used glibly by feminists, but broadly they relate it, (as far as I can see), to the four aspects of power we’ve looked at.

Therefore, by ‘Institutional oppression’ they mean the obstruction of female rulers in the institutions. By ‘Domestic oppression’ they mean the ‘subjugation’ of women to the home as mothers and housewives. By ‘Physical oppression’ they mean the abuse of physical power by men, through domestic violence. By ‘Sexual oppression’ they mean the abuse of men’s sex drive via harassment, date rape and child sexual abuse.

In this book we will look at power and oppression from the masculist angle.

In Part 1, we will examine institutional power and domestic power. (Do feminists distinguish between the Average man and the Elite Rulers ? Is it really powerful being an ‘average’ corporate man ? On the other hand is it really so awful being a housewife and child-rearer ?)

In part 2, we will examine physical power. (Do feminists distinguish between the Average man and the Thug ? Does the feminist stereotyping about ‘violent men’ stand-up ? Are women violent ? Does the Average man abuse his physical power ? If not, how does he use it ?)

In part 3, we will examine sexual power. (Do feminists distinguish between the Average man and the Lunatic Pervert ? Do women ever make false claims of sexual abuse ? What sexual power do women have ? Do they use it responsibly ? Are women given preferential treatment by the Divorce Courts solely on account of their gender ? Are men victimised by the Divorce Courts and the CSA ? )

In part 4, we will identify some litmus tests of oppression. (And ask if these tests confirm feminist claims).

In part 5, we will look at where we need to go from here, and suggest a Male Charter.

Finally in Part 6 we’ll examine what hope remains for divorced middle-aged men like us.


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

PART 1

INSTITUTIONAL AND DOMESTIC POWER

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Feminists argued in the 60’s that men dominated the institutions, and excluded women from rulership. They argued that men ‘kept’ women in the home in order to ensure we had a personal slave to cater for our every whim.

Things changed as a result.

By the year 2000, 2/3 of women worked for an institution. Lets examine the original feminist claims of the 60’s, and then look at who has benefited from the changes that have taken place.

If we compare the plight of the average woman to that of the average man, - who is the more oppressed ?

1.1 LIFESTYLE CHOICES

The Feminist claim : ‘Men want women chained to the kitchen sink. Men oppress women by turning them into housewife slaves’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Where did feminists ever get this notion from, that housewives were ‘chained’ to a kitchen sink ?. They are free now (and they have always been free) to amble into the park, visit McDonalds, go shopping in the sun, go for a swim, visit friends for a coffee etc. , etc. They are not ‘chained’ anywhere. Most men would give their eye teeth for such freedom. Its not much fun being ‘chained’ to an office desk or a factory machine. A housewife, (unlike a man) has the freedom to leave her place of work whenever she wants. She is hardly ‘chained’ !

The Masculist Response (2) : The average man has invented, manufactured, distributed and paid for a multitude of labour-saving household items, in order to make a modern housewife’s life more pleasant and to give her more leisure time than her grandmother had.

We men have created the following labour-saving, leisure-creating devices for housewives : -

Curtains, sofa’s, duvets, wallpaper, freezers, fridges, vacuum-cleaners, washing-machines, dishwashers, central heating, electric lights, telephones, TVs, videos, disposable nappies.

God what absolute bastards we all are ! It sounds just like a male plot to make women work 200 hours per week in a dingy hovel, doesn’t it ? ! It’s time for feminists to focus on the positive contributions men have made to domestic life.

The Masculist Response (3) : A housewife has the freedom and power to furnish and decorate her working environment according to her individual whim. This is both fulfilling and a privilege. In comparison to their husbands who work in a office where the corporate culture permits them a solitary personalised item such as a photograph a housewives lot is a happier one. Women are not ‘chained’ anywhere. If anything it is we men who are chained. We are chained to our desks and alienated by an impersonal working environment.

The Feminist Claim : ‘The Institutions are all dominated and ruled by men, and there is a male plot to keep women out’.

The Masculist Response : Firstly, academic feminists (being the daughters of privileged men) have always compared their status to privileged men. To elite men. The institutions are ruled by an elite group of men, -WUMPEE men : white, university, middle-class, Protestant, employed elderly men. It is not the average man who dominates institutions, it is WUMPEE men.

As Average men we have always been ruled by the Establishment. We have always been obliged to sell our labour to them, and we have always had to bow to the Establishment in the Church, the Police, the Civil Service, and the Courts.

If feminists are going to address the issue of ‘institutional power’ they really need to draw an adult distinction between the Average man and the Establishment. If feminists want to be powerful and rule the institutions they need to take their demands to Freemasonry Lodges and Rotary Club meetings - not to the Average Man. - We don’t have the power to hire and fire, and we never have had. We are totally powerless to determine who rules the institutions. We always have been.

The Feminist Claim : ‘We Middle-class women now work in tough professional jobs, so don’t condescend to us.’

The Masculist Response : It is true that some women also work in tough professional jobs. But they can always opt-out and become full-time mothers. They do not have to think in terms of being a breadwinner for 40 years.

The key word is ‘breadwinner. A ‘breadwinner’ is somebody who is the primary earner. Not a primary earner for 1, 2 or 3 years-but for 40 years. He is someone who has a child and an adult dependent upon him financially. A woman only qualifies as a breadwinner, if she is the primary earner for 40 years. If she doesn’t have that long term sense of duty in her psyche and that long term sense that ‘The buck stops with me over the next 40 years’ , I'm afraid wives have not the slightest idea of male stress levels.

For a man, work is a matter of obligation and duty. For a woman, work is a matter of choice. The most telling example I came across which illustrates the difference between the psyche of a man and a woman, was a 30 year-old woman who appeared on a TV programme about ‘Success’. She had been very successful in the city as a dealer on the money markets in the 80’s. She had been so successful that she became wealthy enough to buy a château in France. She told the interviewer that she had she always treated work in the city as a game - because she knew that if she did not succeed, she could always find a man, raise a family, and become a ‘kept’ woman.

Now that is choice and freedom; it is the choice which is a liberation from stress. It is the choice which a man does not have.

1.2 DAD’S STRESS - WORKING CLASS VERSION

Working class Dads are slaves in a different way. They are ‘Chained’ to a dirty smelly machine in a factory, or they are ‘Chained’ to a noisy dusty building site. Working class Dads have to work in unpleasant jobs. Their stress comes from their physical environment, It is an unsociable physical environment. It is :

Dangerous (Fireman, Electrician, Security guard).

Dusty (Coalminer)

Muddy (Building site worker).

Dirty (Car mechanic).

Smelly (Factory worker).

Cold and wet (Dustman, North Sea fisherman).

Working class men work in an unpleasant physical environment. Unlike working class housewives who work in a well-lit, clean, warm, cosy, home.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Working Class women experience equal stress to working class men’.

The Masculist Response : Where I live, working class women work in safe, warm, clean, pleasantly-heated offices.

They experience no rain, no snow.

No danger.

No dust.

No dirt or mud.

No cold.

No wet.

They have jobs as Secretary, Receptionist, Administration Assistant, Check out Assistant, Shop Assistant, Building Society Assistant, School Teacher, Nursery Assistant or Social Worker. Theirs are not equal working conditions.

They are very cosy compared to their men-folk.

Jobs which involve working outdoors, where the workers have to endure the harsh rigours of nature, are all done by men.

The Feminist Claim. ‘ It is oppressive and boring being a housewife’.

The Masculist Response : Oppressive compared to a corporate man ?

NO BOSS ON YOUR BACK. As a house-parent, a woman (unlike a man) is her own boss. She doesn’t work for anyone. She is not accountable to anyone. She has the power to determine what is urgent and what is not. She has the power to determine what is important and what is not. She has the power to stop when- ever she chooses, to have a rest and a cup of tea and watch Oprah on the TV. Even when she does housework she is free to listen to Virgin Radio if that is what she chooses.

A house-parent has the joy of being independent from a powerful boss.

NO CUSTOMER POWER. As a house-parent, a woman does not have the stress of being answerable to customers. Yes, she does have the stress of dealing with whining, screaming children - but there is one key difference between her situation and her husband’s. Dad has no power over his customers, - they have got power over him, -they control his income and his job. If they all stop buying from him he will become unemployed.

Mum has total power over her customers-the kids; Mum can shout at them, send them to their room or their play-pen, and slap them down in anyway she sees fit. In her role Mum’s got customer power, in his role Dad’s got none. A house-parent has the joy of being independent of powerful customers.

WORK FOR SOMEONE WHO LOVES YOU. A woman, as house-parent, works for people who love her - her children. Dad works customers who demand the world from him , and a board of directors who consider him dispensable at their whim.

FREEDOM TO LEAVE YOUR WORKPLACE. A housewife can leave her workplace if she gets bored and needs a change of scenery. She can escape to McDonalds or the park or the local coffee-shop any time she chooses.

FREEDOM TO DESIGN YOUR ENVIRONMENT. A housewife can furnish , decorate, and design her working environment to make it aesthetically pleasing and stress-free.

FREEDOM TO BE YOURSELF . As a mother you are free to sing with your daughter, dance with her, have a laugh with her, and generally have your own personality. It is not so awful being a housewife. There are lots of perks.

Compared to the plight of her husband, the housewife has a privileged life. It is a shame she finds this privilege ‘boring. ‘

1.3 THE BENEFITS OF THE CARING LIFESTYLE

The Feminist Claim : ‘Women are attracted to the lifestyle option of house-parent and the caring professions, because women are more loving and self-less than men’.

The Hard-Line Masculist Response : Their motives are not so flattering.

Women have a fear of the rough- and- tumble of working in a competitive environment with equals. They have a fear of working with competent adults who can assert themselves. They prefer to work with the powerless- with infants, young children, the sick, the infirm, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, the weak. It has nothing to do with being loving and self-less. Women like power, and they like to rule others.

The teaching profession is evidence of this. As the client base gets older (and more self-assertive) the presence of female teachers gets smaller;-

Nursery school teachers = 99% female. Late school teachers = 50% female.

University lecturers = 20% female.

The Soft-Line Masculist Response : Some women have a need for power but there are some who are genuinely loving. However, they are not self-less than their males who work in commerce. The attractions of choosing a caring lifestyle option are selfish not self-less. They are : (1) love-perks (2) job security, (3) non-accountability, and (4) moral superiority.

(1) LOVE PERKS

A Love perk is a warm hug, a bunch of flowers, a box of chocolates, a thank-you card, a huge smile, - it is the emotional warmth that flows from a child or patient.

Why are love-perks important ?

Love perks are important because they make a person feel valued, feel wanted, feel needed, feel appreciated.

When my wife and I split up, I decided to share a house with lodgers. One lodger was a nurse and one was a teacher. The nurse, Sarah, got thank-you cards, and letters of appreciation, every week without fail, from grateful patients in the local hospital. I could see the ‘lift’ it gave her.

The teacher, Emma, would be greeted in Windsor High street by awe-struck pupils; she received respect, and I could see how this respect motivated her.

The psychological importance of love-perks, I believe, is not fully appreciated by society yet.

Love-perks renew you, they lift your spirit, they give you a reason to continue, they motivate you for the next day, they lower stress, they raise performance levels.

English Soccer teams, when playing at home, receive love-perks from 30, 000 adoring fans. ‘Home’ performances are almost always superior to ‘away’ performances. Teams always prefer to play at home in front of 30, 000 cheering fans. British tennis players always say how wonderful it is to be cheered on by British fans at Wimbledon.

Most people at work, it is said, feel it is more important to be valued and appreciated than to be paid a high salary. The love- perks women receive in a caring role are of great value and are a significant source of emotional power.

Most men long to bond with their infants - to see that first smile, to hear that first word, to help with the first faltering attempts at walking - to help with the first attempts to read and write. To receive that special hug or kiss. Love perks are a source of psychological food for all of us. Women are attracted to the caring role, not because they are self-less, but because of the love-perks they receive.

(2) JOB SECURITY Another selfish reason women choose the caring professions is because caring jobs are generally public sector jobs. A public sector teacher or social worker has greater job security than a private sector marketing executive.

(3) NON-ACCOUNTABILITY The concept of accountability is not highly developed in caring jobs. You're rarely held to account for incompetence or inefficiency unless it is gross. Who has heard of a teacher or social worker or nurse being held accountable and dismissed ?

(4) MORAL SUPERIORITY. By claiming carers are more loving and self-less allows women to take the moral high ground and think of themselves as’ better’ than their husbands who work in commerce.

Lets knock on the head, here and now, the feminist claim that women are more loving and self-less than men. Men selflessly provide food, clothing, housing and education. It is love. It's just a different version of love.

Feminist have persuaded women to have an incredibly self-righteous attitude to loving and ‘caring’, and over-simplistically link the two.

Its time to make it loud and clear that the goods and services that men provide are just as valid as a version of ‘love’. It is different version of love and care but it is equal in value. Every child needs food, housing, clothing, schooling. Providing those things is selfless ‘love’ and ‘care’. Now we've looked at some of the perks involved in being a child-rearer, and a caring professional, let's ‘weight’ Lifestyle options a second time.

The Feminist Retort : ‘If the perks are so wonderful working in the caring professions why don’t more men select this lifestyle option ?’.

The Masculist Response :

1. We men are conditioned from an early age to become providers and breadwinners. For this reason, from age 16 we are conditioned to put money before job satisfaction . When we select a discipline to train in, we choose a discipline that will give our future family financial security. If we knew we were going to be a ‘kept’ man, we would choose a lifestyle which would give us satisfaction and fulfilment.

2. Courting women still seek a man with ‘good prospects’. Most modern women, despite the changes since the 60's, still seek a provider - Men know this. It is one reason why they train in commercial white collar science disciplines rather than arty-farty disciplines or caring disciplines.

3. The average woman still thinks of men who want to be carers as a bit ‘wet’. Male carers are considered to be not only poor providers, but to be a bit wet, and even worse, boring : -‘Women who have married New Men (in Scandinavia) began divorcing them in droves, not on the grounds that their ironing was not good enough, but because they are ‘so wet and boring’ ‘(quote Ann Lesley - Daily Mail). After pleading for 40 years for the birth of a kind sensitive caring New Man the modern Ms has decided that she does not want him after all.

4. Barriers to entry - the glass front door. It has been said that men dominate the corporations, and there is a glass ceiling preventing women rising to the Board. The equivalent in the caring professions , especially the social services and the teaching professions, is domination by politically correct women. There is a key difference however. They exclude men with a glass front door. Men who want to enter the caring professions are treated with suspicion, stigma, and prejudice. It's reverse sexism. Women in the caring professions give men a message : - ‘This is our territory - keep away’. Men who attempt to get into the caring professions are faced with the suspicion and stigma of ‘You’re a potential child molester’, ‘You’re potentially violent’, ‘You’re potentially a rapist’, ‘You’re potentially a sexual deviant’ etc. , etc. The message that an aspiring caring man receives is; ‘You are not welcome in the caring professions, -naff off’. An increasing number of young fathers who I see as a therapist don’t dare wash their daughters in the bath for fear of being accused of being a pervert, let alone dare to apply for a job as a nursery teacher. The demonisation of men by feminists has resulted in men avoiding the caring professions like the plague.

5. Harassment within the job. If a man does dare to get a job in a caring profession, life is often made unpleasant for him. Male care workers are often relegated to menial physical jobs. ‘Lift this, carry that, transport this, clean those toilets etc. , etc’. In some cases sexual discrimination is legalised. For example in homes for the elderly, female workers may legally help a male client to visit the toilet, but a male worker is banned from helping female clients to visit the toilet. It is institutionalised sexism in reverse. To illustrate the depth of discrimination against men, the Appendix to Part 1 describes how politically correct feminists harassed a young man out of the youth work profession.

The feminisation of the caring professions is negative. It's negative, not only because it denies men lifestyle opportunities, but because it harms children, particularly boys, to have no male role models. (The Appendix to Part 1 illustrates this. )

The Feminist Retort 2 : ‘Well if the perks are so wonderful being a house-parent, why don’t more men choose that lifestyle ?’.

The Masculist Response : Many would like to if they had the chance. Many men hate the prospect of being a corporate slave for 40 years. Many would love to be a house-parent. We would love to hear our child’s first word, help her read, see her take her first step. Share laughs and hugs. We’d love the daily emotional warmth. We’d also love to be a ‘kept’ man while we are being a house-parent.

It is not that more men don’t want it.

The reality is that our wives don’t want it. Wives don’t want the burden of becoming the breadwinner and 40 year workhorse, nor do they want to lose a meal-ticket for life.

My friend Adam Newman suggested a lifestyle swap to Germaine. This was how their discussion went :

1.4 DADS WHO ATTEMPT TO SWAP ROLES IN MIDLIFE

Adam : ‘Darling we’ve been 15 years in the same roles now, and we were so keen on the idea of equality when we first got married. I’d like to swap roles and become a house-parent; what do you think of the idea ?’

Germaine : ‘But I can’t earn nearly as much as you can darling’.

Adam : ‘Well you can study for a year. You can study through Open University to gain some commercial skills. Once you’ve got your qualification at the end of the year we can swap roles then’. (The kids all cheer at the prospect).

Germaine : ‘But it will affect our standard of living. We won’t be able to have the same amount of things as we have now. It’s simply not fair on the kids’.

Adam : ‘Well we can reduce our standard of living. I can cut down on my drinking. You can cut down on your smoking. We don’t have to buy so many fashionable clothes, or go out for dinner so much, and we’ll cut out the holiday in Peru. We’ll manage’.

Germaine : ‘But what about the things we’ve got on hire purchase ? -the sofa and the car ?’.

Adam : ‘Well we can sell the sofa and return it to the salesperson. We can buy a second hand sofa instead, which will be much better for the kids, they can bounce up and down on it and make a mess of it’. (The kids cheer again) ‘And you’ll get a company car before long’.

Germaine : ‘But what about the mortgage payment ? We are mortgaged up to the hilt’.

Adam : ‘Well, we can reduce our monthly payments until you get a promotion. I have already spoken to the building society and they have approved the idea in principle. They will reduce our payments until you get promotion at work and then they will put them back up to normal’.

Germaine : ‘But we’re nice and settled now. The kids have got into a routine which they understand and I understand. Which we all understand. I think you are being selfish and self-centred’.

Adam : ‘Listen Germaine. I am highly stressed. I have got high blood pressure. I am going bald and what hair I’ve got left is going grey; I hardly ever see my kids any more because I work such long hours. I think the kids deserve to see me more, and need to see me more. If I don't reduce my stress-levels, I’ll be dead in 10 years time’.

(Adam and Germaine have a massive row).

Adam : ‘I am handing in my resignation at the end of the month whether you like it or not. You can either take your turn at being breadwinner and provider or you can avoid the responsibility. It depends on how much you really value me and how much you really believe in equality’.

(At the end of the month, Adam resigns)

(Two months later : Adam receives divorce papers from Germaine citing ‘unreasonable behaviour’).

(Six months later : The case goes to Court, Germaine is awarded the house, custody of the kids and maintenance. She continues working part-time and claims Income Support from the taxpayer. Adam is not only jobless but now finds himself homeless. He is obliged to return to work full-time for an institution).

1.5 SUMMARY

The Average man does not have Institutional Power. Nor does he have Domestic Power. The modern man is less powerful than the modern women using any one of the following criteria.

Lifestyle Option vs Work Obligation

Years Worked.

Hours Worked.

Workhorse Stress.

Breadwinner Stress.

Dangerous Jobs.

Dirty, cold, wet Unpleasant Jobs.

The Boss on your Back.

Customer Power.

Working for people who love you.

Freedom to roam.

Freedom to decorate your Environment. Love perks.

Job Security. Non-accountability Moral superiority

Discrimination in the Caring Professions.

Freedom to be yourself.

Dads who attempt to swap roles in mid-life are obstructed by wives who do not want to lose a meal-ticket and free ride.

Who’s really got the power ? The average man or the average woman ?

Basically gentlemen, we’ve been conned into believing our women are powerless. They’re not. It just depends how you define power.

We men do a magnificent job of providing food, clothing, and housing over 40 years. We need to celebrate this. Over these 40 years we get an unequal share of stress, and an unequal share of perks. We need to change this.

WHO’S GOT THE POWER ? !

HER HIM

Lifestyle Options *

Years Worked *

Hours Worked *

Workhorse Stress *

Breadwinner Stress *

Freedom to furnish your working

environment *

Freedom to roam *

Boss on your Back *

Customer Power *

Unpleasant Jobs *

Dangerous Jobs *

Dirty Jobs *

Working for people who love you * Love perks *

Job Security * Non-accountability * Moral superiority

Discrimination in the caring

professions *

Freedom to be yourself *


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

PART 2

PHYSICAL POWER

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Feminists claim that we abuse our physical power. That we are testosterone-crazed beasts who enjoy fighting-. That male physical power is directed at women, in the home as domestic violence, and in the street as the mugging of innocent women. Feminists claim that women hate all violence and aggression, and that women are never perpetrators of violence but are always innocent victims of it. They claim that all aggression is a bad thing. That all wars are futile, have always been caused by men- and fought between men. Finally, they claim that all wars will stop when women rule society.

Let dissect this feminist propaganda piece by piece and see if it has any substance.

2.1 THE 'VIOLENT MEN SLUR' - The Average man v the Thug.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Most men are testosterone-crazed beasts who enjoy fighting’.

The Masculist Response : If a man were to say : ‘Most women are PMT-crazed beasts who enjoy hysterical abuse’ ! there would be an outcry from feminists. It is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes it is over simplistic. The Average man does not enjoy fighting and will walk away from trouble if he possibly can. The small minority of men who go looking for trouble tend to be disadvantaged, adolescent youths aged 16 to 25 years. You have only got to look at the age profiles of males who have been convicted for violent offences to acknowledge this fact.

The Feminist Claim : ‘All aggression is a bad thing’.

The Masculist Response : This is the philosophy of a naïve adolescent. Academic feminists have always presented the issue as ‘aggression’ vs ‘non-aggression’.

Their argument has been that aggression is a function of the sick male psyche. That aggression is evil. Males are aggressive, therefore all males are evil. Its like saying all stealing is wrong. Thieves are male, therefore all males are thieves !

Feminists urged us in the 60’s to become New Men - to turn ourselves into kind, gentle, sensitive, pacifists.

They (and we) missed the key issue. The key issue was not ‘aggression’ versus ‘non-aggression’, but ‘thug aggression’ versus ‘protective aggression’. I'll illustrate the difference : -

EXAMPLES OF THUG AGGRESSION

(a) A total stranger comes up to me in the street, smashes me in the face and nicks my wallet while I lay bleeding on the ground.

and

(b) The British army goes into Africa and forcibly enslaves black men, and ships them off to America to work on cotton and sugar plantations.

EXAMPLES OF PROTECTIVE AGGRESSION

(a) My family is walking in the woods having a quiet amble; all of a sudden, a massive pit-bull terrier comes charging out of the bushes, and clamps its jaws around my daughter’s leg. She starts screaming. I take my walking-stick and give the dog a sharp crack on the skull. It lets go quickly and runs off whimpering.

and

(b) The British airforce defend Britain against an invasion by Hitler during the Second World War.

Feminism has fed post-war society over-simplistic nonsense on the subject of aggression and pacifism.

Not all aggression is evil. To claim all aggression is evil is a gross and utter misrepresentation and lie. There are two kinds of aggression. Call it ‘thug aggression’ versus ‘protective aggression’. Call it ‘unrighteous aggression’ versus ‘righteous aggression’. Call it what you want, But make an adult distinction between two types of aggression. One type of aggression can be used as an excuse to steal, rob and loot in a spirit of malevolence. The other type of aggression can be used to protect, to shield, to shelter and defend in a spirit of love. The key issue is how a man uses his aggression, whether he uses it for good or for evil.

From a British perspective, the thug aggression directed at Africa was a shameful example of greed and self-gratification. But the defence of Europe against Hitler was a noble example of men being prepared to loose their lives in love to protect people threatened by evil.

Similarly the thug aggression used by a mugger is a shameful example of greed and cruelty. But the defence of a little girl against a mad dog is a noble example of protective aggression.

Protective aggression is an honourable emotion. I would hate to think that if my stepdaughter got attacked in the woods I would be impotent of the necessary passion to protect her. I thank God for my aggression, and it's time for academic feminists to adjust their over-simplistic philosophy and draw an adult distinction between good and evil aggression.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Women hate all violence and aggression’.

The Masculist Response : Visit any wrestling match or boxing match and the audience will comprise large numbers of women. Listen to them scream support for their chosen hero. Many women love watching a bit of violence. Visit any bull-fight abroad. For every woman who abhors bullfighting there is an equal number of women who find it not only exciting but even erotic. (Remember Madonna’s video about the matador ?)

One friend of mine who visited a bull-fight near Madrid got bored after the third fight and started gazing at others in the audience. He told me ‘I couldn’t help noticing this Englishwoman two rows in front of me. She was shouting and cheering and whooping and hollering. She was writhing around on her seat. I’m sure she was getting-off sexually on the whole experience. It was a real eye-opener to me’.

Not all women abhor violence and aggression. Many enjoy it. And enjoy it sexually.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Men are always the perpetrators of violence. Women are always the innocent victims’.

The Masculist Response : ‘Psychological’ violence.

We have already seen the importance of love perks to the human spirit. The reverse of love perks is ‘psychological violence’. It destroys the human spirit. It drains you, it injures you.

Call it psychological violence, call it spiritual murder, call it mental abuse, call it nagging, call it intimidation, call psychological terrorism, call it whatever you like, it is aggression and violence none the less. It is a type of aggression which injures the spirit rather than the body. It is violence against the soul. At its worst it is murder of the soul.

Let me illustrate the dramatic difference between a love perk and psychological violence : -

A British psychiatrist, Dr J. Hadfield, in his book ‘The Psychology of Power’ says : ‘I asked three men to submit themselves to test the effect of mental suggestion on their physical strength’.

He used a dynamometer to measure the strength of their hand-grip. He first tested them under normal waking conditions. Next he tested them under two different hypnotic suggestions. For the first hypnotic suggestion, (based on lots of love perks) he encouraged them to believe that they were strong. —Very, very strong and wonderful people.

For the second hypnotic suggestion he was psychologically violent towards them- he told them that they were weak, very, very weak and that they were pathetic specimens of manhood. (Maybe I am exaggerating a little, but you get the picture).

The dynamometer registered the following results : -

TEST CONDITIONS RESULT

Normal waking conditions 101 lbs

‘Love perks’ hypnotic suggestion 142 lbs

‘Psychological violence’ hypnotic suggestion 29 lbs.

Some women can be the most vicious, nasty spiteful creatures, and say the most awful, hateful things. Militant feminists have been the perpetrators of the worse kind of hateful psychological violence for 40 years, and God alone knows the depth of damage it has done to its victims.

The Feminist Claim : ‘All wars are futile’.

The Masculist Response : This is the philosophy of a naïve adolescent again. Wars have a political, religious or economic pay-off.

Consider the political pay-off : Some people want to live under capitalism, some communism, some a mixed economy, some fascism, some political correctness. Some political people use persuasion some manipulation, some psychological violence, some military force . A war is not futile if the pay off is living under the particular political system you yearn for.

Consider the religious pay-off : Some people want to live in a society where people worship Jesus, some people want to live in a society where people worship Allah, some want to live in a society where people worship the goddess Diana and nature. Some religious people use persuasion , some manipulation, some psychological violence, some military force. A war is not futile if the payoff is living under the religious and moral system you yearn for.

Consider the economic pay-off : The most important resource in the world is land. On land we grow our crops and raise our cattle, on land we build our houses and our factories. Underneath land we mine for valuable energy sources and metals- like coal, oil and tin. With land comes food and shelter and the opportunity to convert the earth’s materials into something useful.

For this reason, competition for plots of land has been intense throughout history. Any dispute over who has the ‘right’ to a particular plot of land is desperately important. What is at stake is the food that plot of land supplies and the mineral resources buried underneath that plot of land.

Some plots of land are much more fertile and much more rich in resources than other plots of land. For this reason (and this reason alone) human beings will always be locked into combat for the most desirable plots of land. It is called greed.

Both for individuals and for nations the harsh reality is that life is an economic power-struggle. A struggle to acquire land and a struggle to keep that land. Just look at the effort most nations put into acquiring a new set of territories and the effort they put into maintaining their empires. Just look at the depth wives are prepared to sink to, during divorce, to acquire the matrimonial home. Economic war certainly doesn’t seem ‘futile’ to most women when it comes to a war over the matrimonial home.

At one end of the economic spectrum, the lure is financial security and material wealth; at the other end of the spectrum the fear is financial insecurity and starvation. These are big issues. A war is not futile if the payoff is a distribution of wealth which favours you.

Wars are not futile; they result from the core of human nature. One person’s sense of a politically acceptable government versus another person’s sense of a politically acceptable government. One person’s sense of an acceptable religion versus another’s. One person’s desire for material comfort versus another’s. Wars are not futile. There is always a payoff for some group of people.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Wars have always been caused by men’.

The Masculist Response : This is a massive porky-pie. It's a completely false claim. Witness : Queen Boadicea, Queen Elizabeth, Queen (Bloody) Mary, Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Queen Isabella, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meyer.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Wars have always been fought between men’.

The Masculist Response : True. To date. (Excluding the Gulf War). But how much option was the Average Man given from 1066 to 1945 ? None ! Fight, or get locked up in prison ! Or worse, get shot for being a deserter !

During the First World War, Quakers pacifists refused to fight and declared themselves ‘conscientious objectors’. What was the response from their society ?

Quaker fathers were locked in prison for the four year duration of the war, and were sent white feathers, spat upon and ostracised by their local community.

Until 1945, in Britain and America, women used to line the streets to cheer and applaud as their men-folk marched off in uniform to fight a war in some far-flung country.

Men do not enjoy fighting, but in the past they have been told to do their duty for God, King and Empire. Women encouraged them to do so. Men have fought in wars because the community, (including women), manipulated them or bullied them to do so.

Not all wars have been ‘evil’ wars, but the average man has never been asked to choose those wars he approved of, and those he did not. He was ordered to fight and was treated as expendable.

The Feminist Claim : ‘All wars will stop when women rule the world’.

The Masculist Response (1) : I'm are fascinated to learn how this Utopian vision will come about ! ! Let us assume feminists overcome the hurdle of Wumpee rule in Britain. Let’s assume that the politically correct left-wing ‘sisters’ successfully persuade the Tory wives of our Wumpee rulers that they will become even more privileged living under a politically correct feminist society.

Lets assume that all these Tory wives, suitably converted, make a secret pact with each other, and decide one dark night, at midnight on October 31st, to slip their husbands a poisonous potion . BINGO ! The wives inherit their husbands ill-gotten loot. They have achieved massive economic power, and the revolution can begin !

One of the first things that will happen, (after a couple of months), is that Saddam Hussein (or someone similar), will spot a vulnerable country ripe for colonising. He will prepare 50, 000 troops to invade Britain. He wants Britain’s food, oil and wealth for his people. He wants his Iraqi people to have some of the good things in life for a change.

What will our new feminists rulers do ? Try to negotiate with Mrs Hussein ? ! Mrs Hussein might want to ask a few pertinent questions first. (She hasn’t had her consciousness raised yet, so she still believes in a few traditional values). Mrs Hussein asks ‘What respect will the new order show to the religion of Islam ? Does the new Feminist Order have any objection to an Islamic political system in the world ? How will Feminist Britain redistribute its wealth to Iraq and the third world ?(This is not something which had even crossed their minds !) Why did that woman leader Mrs Thatcher allow the Americans to use Britain as an airbase, which led to the death of her son ?’

These are not easy questions to answer. She wants to know every detail about the feminist plan for World domination. She wants to know every detail about their religious plan, their political plan, and their economic plan. They don’t have a detailed plan - at least not one that’s adult enough for Mrs Hussein.

Instead she gives her blessing to the invasion of Britain.

The Masculist Response (2) : White women collude in wars and get a lot of benefit from them. Queen Victoria’s Empire stretched through Africa to India. British people still benefit from the legacy of Imperialist wars. We acquire cheap tea from India, cheap coffee from Kenya, cheap diamonds from South Africa and cheap clothes from the sweat-shops of the East. White western women have done very nicely out of the domination of the third world and continue to do very nicely out of it. I notice that they don’t clamour for fair trade - for fair wages for their Indian sisters who pick the leaves from the tea bushes, or fair wages for the oppressed blackmen who mine the diamonds for their engagement rings. British women spend more on cosmetics each year than they donate to third world charities. They have no desire to sacrifice their current standard of living to benefit their poorer sisters abroad.

Since the days of Queen Victoria western women have colluded in Imperialism. For women to take the moral high ground over ‘male’ wars is hypocrisy of the highest order.

The Masculist Response (3) : Women in Britain and the USA naïvely think the their countries are secure from the threat of invasion. This gives them the emotional security to attack ‘male aggression’

Women in other parts of the world know how naïve British and American feminists are;-

‘A Russian woman from Kiev whose generation of women have lived for many years without men of their own age, said to me : ‘All the young men who left after the battle for Kiev went on to Moscow to defend it. Not one came back. ‘ She went on : ‘I know the women in the United States are angry with the men because they are too aggressive and so on. We don’t feel that way. If the Russian men had not had great aggression in them, the Germans would be in Moscow right now. The matter of aggression looks different if you have been invaded. ‘ (excerpt from Iron John by Robert Bligh)

Academic feminists from Britain and the USA have had no experience of their land being invaded. They feel safe. They think they are safe and don’t have the threat of invasion in their psyche like Russian women do.

It is naïve to assume Britain is safe and secure.

During the second world war, Hitler invaded as far as Jersey. He took over a neighbouring island. He didn’t quite reach mainland Britain, but we only escaped by the skin of our teeth. If it had not been for the victory (of men) in the Battle of Britain, we would have been invaded and perhaps under German rule now, speaking German to each other.

That was only 50 odd years ago. Who knows what threat a unified Germany could pose to Britain if it swings to the right again. Who knows what sort of threat the fundamentalist Muslim nations could pose to Britain if their religious leaders decide to wage a religious war. Who knows what threat China, with 1/5 of the world’s population, could pose to the whole of Europe and America.

It is foolish to attempt to castrate male aggression. When a new Hitler prepares for invasion, the feminists will come running to us men shrieking; ‘protect us, protect us !’, but they’ll get no response, - because all that will be left of the British male will be a load of New Men who have as much desire to protect as a pink blancmange !

2.2 HOW THE AVERAGE MAN PROTECTS, NOT ATTACKS, WOMEN

We all know our role, our job : - protector, bodyguard.

Not just when we are with our wife, but when we are with any woman.

‘On call’ 24 hours a day, everyday. The Average man is conditioned to use his physical power as ‘protector’ and ‘bodyguard on call’. - The Average Man uses his physical power in protective love.

WHO PROTECTS THE FAMILY ?

(1) You are in town with your wife having a Chinese meal. You leave the restaurant at 11pm. Some drunken youths approach you and start hassling you both. Who responds ?

(2) You are in bed with your wife. She wakes you up at 3am. She can hear ‘strange noises’ downstairs. Who goes downstairs to investigate ?

(3) You are walking in the woods one Sunday with your wife and children. Suddenly a massive Pitbull-Terrier lurches out of the bushes and barks viciously at your daughter. Who responds ?

WHO PROTECTS THE COMMUNITY ?

(1) You take your son to a football match. A fight breaks out in the crowd. The police move in to break it up. What gender are the police ?

(2) Your next-door neighbour has a heart attack. An ambulance is called. What gender are the ambulance staff ?

(3) A fire breaks out in the house across the street. You call the fire brigade. What gender are the fire-fighters ?

(4) You are in London. There is a bomb scare. The bomb-

-disposal squad are called in. What gender are the bomb-disposal squad ?

WHO PROTECTS THE NATION ?

(1) In the UK you are watching the TV one evening. An interview is taking place with a front-line combat- soldier in Northern Ireland. What gender is the soldier ?

(2) You are visiting America. You have rented a car. Music is playing on you car radio. An announcers voice interrupts : ‘We have a special bulletin from the President. Since 1. 2 million American men have been killed in war, as part of my new programme for equality we will draft only women, until 1. 2 American women have been killed in war. What is the response of academic feminists ?

WHO PROTECTS ?

HER HIM

THE FAMILY

Drunk in the street * (husband)

Burglar at night * (husband)

Dog in the wood * (husband)

THE COMMUNITY

Police at football * (policeman)

Fire at home * (fireman)

Ambulance emergency *(ambulance-woman) *(ambulance-men)

Bomb * (bomb disposal men)

THE NATION

Combat Soldiers in Northern * (Soldier-man)

Ireland

WHO PROTECTS

STRESS DANGER FEMALE

LEVEL LEVEL PRESENCE

THE FAMILY



Drunk in the street high high 0%

Burglar at night high high 0%

Dog in the wood high high 0%

THE COMMUNITY

Police at football high very high 0%

Fire high very high 0%

Ambulance Emergency low low 50%

Bomb Disposal Squad very high very high 0%

THE NATION

Combat Soldiers in very high very high 0%

Northern Ireland

The figures are not intended to be strictly accurate. It is the spirit that's important.

Women are not against wars at all. They are just against fighting in them. The philosophy of the modern feminist in matters of protection seems to be ‘Insist men take sole responsibility, and curse them for being violent brutes’.

Feminists do not genuinely want equality, - not if equality means equal responsibility. It is a shameful example of dishonourable double standards.

We men have been conditioned to think of ourselves as Bodyguards and Protectors-on-call. We have been taught that men are expendable.

That we are not as important as women, that we are expendable. Society says we are expendable. We even believe it ourselves. We think of ourselves as expendable. Why ? In medieval times we would acquire some spoils from battle - women, loot and land. Therefore in the old days a man risked death because their was a pay-off. What was in it for him was the spoils of battle. These spoils are not available anymore so why do we still, in this age of equality still think in terms of ‘Women and children first ?’

The movies sales-pitch is the ‘Man-as-rescuer’, who overcomes the danger, to save the ‘Damsel-in-Distress’ and gets the reward of a pair of wet lips, (if you see what I mean).

That’s how the movies moguls sell the philosophy to us. ‘Become an Officer and a Gentleman. He is desired by all women for his protective prowess, and his reward is erotic sex’.

Basically Gentlemen we have been conned. We have been conned by the media sector of the establishment, into performing a role of the expendable bodyguard and protector . We do not get erotic sex - we don’t even get the common courtesy of a thank-you.

Most men are more than willing to offer protection to a woman if they are valued and thanked. They are not willing to offer it if they are taken for granted in one breath, and despised for being male warmongers in the other.

2.3 SUMMARY

We do a magnificent job of protecting our family , our community, and our nation. We need to celebrate this. We take on more than an equal share of danger and stress. Meanwhile militant feminists condemn us, and curse our aggressiveness. Feminists must be challenged to decide if they truly want equality or just want to play at it. Equal Rights means Equal Responsibility. They can either leave the dangerous Protection Role exclusively to us, and thank us profusely, or they can share the role equally. They can't have it both ways.

WHO’S GOT THE BEST DEAL ? !

HER HIM

Drunk in the street *

Burglar at night *

Dog in the woods *

Police at football *

Fire at home *

Ambulance Emergency * *

Bomb Disposal Squad *

Combat Soldiers *


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

PART 3

SEXUAL POWER

3.0 INTRODUCTION

The feminist accusation is that men are sexual demons. That we view women as sex objects, that we harass, that we rape and that we are all child molesters.

Let’s analyse these accusations and distinguish between the Average Man and the Lunatic Pervert. Then let’s look at female sexual power. Let’s look at the power the average woman has in courtship, marriage, pregnancy, adultery, divorce, custody and access. Let’s look at sexual ‘power’ from a Masculist perspective.

3.1 COURTSHIP

The Feminist Claim : ‘Men treat women as sexual objects’.

The Masculist Response : When the very first female newsreader, - Angela Rippon - was appointed, I thought it was great. (I was pro-feminist in those days).

Newsreaders, until then, had a sober and sombre public image. An image which reflected the seriousness of the tragedies in the world which they were reporting.

I was staggered to see Ms Rippon’s immediate response to her new found appointment as a newsreader-

She appeared on the Morecambe-and-Wise show, exhibiting her feminine charms with a sexy song-and-dance routine, and a display of her long stockinged legs. A symbolic alarm bell rang for me as I watched that show. I realised that whatever feminists claim, most women will go to great lengths to seek the attention of men, and to be viewed as sexually desirable. Viewers did not get the opportunity to know and like Ms Rippon as a person - merely to ogle at her. She wanted them to do so. She wanted to be treated as a sexual ‘object’, or, she wanted to be treated as a sexual ‘goddess’.

To make a distinction is just playing with words.

Most women would love to be a sexual goddess. They are desperate to seek the attention of men.

When the Modern Ms prepares to go out for ‘a night on the town’ she doesn’t just casually sling on the nearest clothes and indifferently run a brush through her hair. She goes through a two hour ritual. She makes herself sexually alluring and sexually powerful, and invests a lot of time preparing to meet men.

The following two hour ritual is reproduced here courtesy of the March 96 issue of ‘Sugar’ - a magazine targeted at teenage girls :

6. 00pm - Flick through Sugar for hair and make-up inspiration.

6. 10pm - Wash your hair, use conditioner, apply curlers, blow-dry

6. 20pm - Run a scented bubble bath

6. 25pm - Cleanse your face with Oil of Ulay facial wash.

6. 30pm - Remove dead skin from your body with a Body Shop Marmalade

Scrub - (So that your skin looks extra strokable and feels super-silky to his touch).

6. 35pm - Shave your legs.

6. 45pm - Dry your skin and apply Palmer’s Cocoa Butter moisturiser.

6. 50pm - Put on a record.

‘The Power of a Woman’ by Eternal (Really : - ! I tell not a lie !)

6. 55pm - Give your nails a manicure and apply nail varnish -

Kiss and Make Up £1. 99.

7. 10pm - Start on your face.

Apply a concealer and foundation.

7. 15pm - Apply mascara.

7. 20pm - Apply lip-care (E45 Lipcare) and lip-liner and lipstick

and lipgloss - to make your lips extra snogworthy.

(I swear, this is word for word).

7. 25pm - Apply blusher.

7. 30pm - Apply hairspray (Salon Selectives). Wind each curl on a hot brush for 30 seconds.

7. 40pm - Apply underarm deodorant.

Apply perfume behind your ears and on your wrists.

7. 45pm - Apply your ‘party outfit’

8. 00pm - Check :

Your hair is in place.

Your make-up is perfect (no smudges).

You’re smiling.

Stick on a CD

Wait for the doorbell to ring.

Most women want a man. To get one they will dress to allure, or put more popularly ‘dress to kill’. Women are attention-seekers and ‘exhibitionists’.

I personally have no problem with that, after all we humans are just sophisticated animals. An animal’s instinct is to continue its genes. To do so they need a mate. To get a mate they have got to attract one. To attract one they’ve got to make an impression. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to allure a mate.

What I do have a problem with is the refusal of academic feminists to accept adult responsibility for the attention-seeking devices young women employ. When challenged on the subject they claim women dress ‘for comfort’ or ‘for fashion’. It’s not true.

A small minority of women are absolute gems. They obviously don’t like their ‘sisters’ twisting the truth, and being dishonest with men.

Nancy Friday, for instance, writes : -

‘For every woman who cringes when the construction workers whistle at her passing, there is another who anticipates the attention half way up the block and would be crestfallen if male heads didn’t turn. It can be a very heady power trip to control men’s behaviour with your body. It is time we acknowledge the importance of female beauty, not as a male plot, but as a pursuit women enter into in their earliest female-to-female competitions. The power of exhibitionism is our female responsibility’.

We need to change the culture into one where women accept adult responsibility for their exhibitionism and attention-seeking. - From the flicking of the hair, to the pouting lips, to the thrusting out of the breasts, to the ‘little-girl-lost’ look, to the ‘come ‘hither’ eyes’. Accept them all as conscious, deliberate, alluring techniques. Accept it as female sexual power, not powerlessness.

We 60’s men are now older and wiser. Either the modern Ms is a naïve, sexually- innocent virgin, who dresses for personal comfort, and who does not want to be seen as a sexual object-or she is a sexually sophisticated, street-wise adult, who deliberately uses all her sexual wiles to allure a man, and wants him to treat her as a sexual goddess. Feminists can’t have it both ways.

I’m Special

by Chrissie Hinds of the Pretenders

Gonna make you

Gonna make you

Notice

Gonna use my arms

Gonna use my legs

Gonna use my sassy

Gonna use my fingers

Gonna use my my imagination

Oh

Cos I gonna make you see

Nobody else here

No one like me

I’m special (special)

So special (special)

I gotta have some of your

Attention

Give it to me

The Feminist Claim : ‘All Men are rapists’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Again the boundaries keep moving. Rape in the 60’s meant ‘a violent physical attack with a weapon, by a stranger, followed by sexual intercourse without consent’. 40 years later, rape has come to mean ‘any sexual contact without the woman’s consent’.

In the 60’s the boundary defined two essential criteria. One was ‘consent’ the other was ‘violence’. Feminists persuaded the lawmakers to abandon the ‘violence’ criteria. As a consequence no one quite knows where the modern boundaries are.

A prison sentence for a man accused of date rape now revolves around the interpretation of the word ‘consent’.

Say, for instance, I meet a woman in a pub, we have a few drinks; I invite her back to my flat; we kiss and cuddle. I begin to undress her; she doesn’t stop me but she doesn’t give me any signals. She doesn’t say a word; she’s had too much to drink and so have I; We get into bed naked and make love. Then she wakes up the next morning she claims that I took advantage of her while she was drunk and that I’m guilty of date rape. She goes to the police to report me. Two hours later I am arrested for date-rape and my name is on the front page of the local newspaper. My reputation is ruined , even if I am found not guilty in court.

There is a great deal of difference between this situation and an attack by a violent stranger. One is sexual assault by a man. The other is an abrogation of adult responsibility by a woman. Avoiding responsibility for having a one- night, and dumping the responsibility onto the man is cowardly. For a woman to scapegoat a man for her sins is not only cowardly but wicked.

Date rape laws are a farce.

The Masculist Response (2) : In the 1990’s the US airforce investigated 556 claims of rape. It invited the claimants to take a lie-detector test before proceeding to court. Nearly a third of the claimants, (150 women), admitted they had lied. Some just before taking the test, some just after taking it.

When asked why they had lied, only a half volunteered to explain. The main reasons these women gave were :

1. Revenge

2. To avoid responsibility because they felt guilt and shame.

3. To avoid responsibility for having an (enjoyable) affair.

4. To ‘test my husband’s love for me. ‘

It seems that false rape claims (not unproved’ but false, fabricated claims) are very common. The men’s charity, Families Need Fathers, experience many reports of women who make false claims of spouse rape as an act of revenge on their husbands.

The Masculist Response (3) : I went to the local library to see how significant and widespread rape was in this country. I found out that in 1992 there were 30, 000 formal rape accusations. I put on my most radical masculist hat. I decided to dismiss a third as either false accusations and scapegoating, and to dismiss another third as poor communication. I would have expected a minimum of a third of the 30, 000 to translate as firm conviction for rape. (i.e. 10, 000). In fact the actual, figure was 4, 300 convictions. A conviction rate of a mere 14%.

The problem is, that under English law,

a) A person is innocent until proven guilty.

b) If there are no witnesses it becomes the woman’s word against the man’s.

c) The jury must be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the man is guilty.

d) The man’s previous prosecutions, and convictions, are not revealed to the jury.

I cannot believe that only 14% of rape accusations are bona-fide.

In this instance think that feminists have every right to be furious that the legal system does not give them justice.

It seems that the present system is failing to identify and imprison Lunatic Perverts. This failure of the legal system has created female fury which is being targeted at all men, including the totally innocent average man.

If we can encourage feminists to use a sniper’s rifle rather than an atom bomb in their rape propaganda, then maybe the guilty will be prosecuted and the innocent will be spared their venom.

As Masculists we will fight to ensure bona-fide rapists are imprisoned. At the same time we will work to ensure that falsely accused men are protected.

The Feminist Claim : ‘All fathers are potential child abusers’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Like the ‘all men are rapists’ claim, feminists deliberately fail to distinguish between the Average Man and the Lunatic Pervert.

There is now no doubt that Paedophile groups and Satanic groups exist, and that both practise child abuse. These men (and women *) are lunatic perverts who should be executed by the state.

However, militant feminists are deliberately fuelling an atmosphere of paranoia by demonising all men. There is a danger that before long, the average woman will see a child molester behind every bush.

The truth is that the child molester is not the average father. A child is most at risk, not from his/her legitimate genetic father, but, from mum’s visiting boyfriend.

A child is much more likely to be abused by a stranger - a boyfriend or an ‘uncle’.

If feminists truly want to protect children from sexual abuse they should be campaigning to keep marriage sacred and the genetic family unit intact.

The destruction of marriage and the nuclear family is the single greatest threat to the sexual safety of children, because it makes them vulnerable to any one of a procession of mum’s boyfriends, none of whom have any responsibility to the children - not financial, legal or genetic.

The Masculist Response (2) : Given the present age of hysteria and paranoia, it is very easy for an imaginative young woman who has read about child molestation to create a drama in her memory. This drama will guarantees her attention, and centre-stage attention.

‘False memory syndrome’ is now widely recognised as a serious problem amongst experts - many of whom are female experts.

I am not saying that all claims of father-abuse by daughters, are the product of an over-creative imagination. I am saying that some are; and may be an adolescent form of revenge upon dad, for some real or imagined wrong.

* Recent evidence reveals woman are responsible for 25% of cases of sexual abuse of children.

COURTSHIP POWER REASSESSED

Male Responsibility - Female Rights.

Throughout the whole of courtship politics, men are the gender that is expected to take the initiative. But if men misinterpret female communications, the politically correct penalties are severe.

3.2 MARRIAGE

The Feminist Claim : ‘Men have a fear of commitment’.

The Masculist Response : Women have a biological time clock that limits the time available to have children; by the time they are 35, their biological time-clock is ticking loudly. We men don’t have biological time-clocks. Hence we don’t have the same urgency that women have. (If we are all such bastards, why are women so desperate to marry us anyway ?) Nowadays there is a high risk of being cuckolded, and an even higher risk of being divorced further down the line. If your wife were to divorce you, you'd loose your house and your kids. It is hardly appropriate for the average man to rush headlong into marriage given the risks involved.

A man needs to very carefully assess whether his girlfriend is likely to remain sexually loyal, and if she's likely to take his kids and his house if she's tempted to divorce him.

Yes men do have a fear of commitment. But its a legitimate fear, borne of knowledge of the history of relationships since the '60's. It is self-defensive caution.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Any man who wants to draw up a Pre-Nuptial contract is untrusting and insulting his fiancée’.

The Masculist Response : 75% of divorces in the UK are initiated by wives. Nowadays they do not even have to site a reason for wanting a divorce. A Prenuptial contract is an essential requirement for any modern man who does not like the possibility of loosing his home and kids without reason. Pre-nuptial contracts are recognised by most states in the USA, but the English courts do not accept them as legally binding.

In England a man can’t protect himself with a pre-nuptial contract, because the courts will override such a contract. The government claims it doesn’t want a ‘nanny state’ but at present they are imposing one.

An Englishman can inherit a house from his parents one day, get married the next, become a father the next, be divorced (against his will) the next, and his wife will be legally entitled to his home despite the fact that she contributed nothing to it. At present there’s not a thing an Englishman can do to protect himself against a woman who wants to leave him for someone else, and take his assets with her.

A woman's marriage vow means very little. History speaks loudly. A modern man who insists on a Pre-Nuptial Contract is showing adult wisdom by understanding that a marriage can fail. By clearly agreeing the rights and responsibilities for both genders , both for the duration of the marriage, and, in the event of divorce, he ensures that both partners are very clear where they stand. He also ensures that the relationship is not one where the goalposts constantly move.

The Feminist Claim : ‘Men subjugate women in marriage, when they force them to take the male surname’.

The Masculist Response (1) : The male surname has been adopted by the female for a simple practical reason. In the old days a surname denoted a trade (Smith equalled Blacksmith trade) or a membership of a tribe (McGregor equalled McGregor tribe). The trade membership was the family’s passport to income, and the tribe membership was the family's passport to protection from invaders.

Because in the past, women were the child-rearers and men were the craftsmen and soldiers, the family name was an important link to income and protection. Male provision and protection meant the family’s survival. Therefore the woman took on the surname of the male for her own provision and protection. When feminists agree to take on equal responsibility as providers and protectors, then, and only then, is it just to moan about the fairness of surnames.

The Masculist Response (2) : As men we :

a) Are expected to subjugate ourselves by getting down on one knee and’ begging’ a woman to marry us !This is a symbol of where the real power lays !

b) Have to risk the humiliation of a woman’s rejection.

c) Have to humiliate ourselves by asking our fiancée’s father’s ‘permission’ to marry.

d) Have to risk the humiliation of her father’s rejection.

If this is male ‘power’ then I am a penguin !

3.3 PREGNANCY

The Feminist Claim : ‘Female contraception is male domination’.

The Masculist Response (1) : No it’s not, it is female power. Women have the power to rule the pregnancy game. They have 5 or 6 contraceptive choices to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy. A man has only one. (The condom). A woman has a great deal of power to decide when she wants to become pregnant. If her biological time-clock ticks loudly she has the power to become pregnant by ‘forgetting’ to take the pill.

The Masculist Response (2) : Many married men did not plan the conception of their first born. Their wives told them they were on the pill, then became pregnant without consulting them and without their consent.

Of the men I spoke to, 40% said that their first born children were ‘accidents’ - or put more precisely ‘accidentally on purpose’ accidents ! When a wife tells her husband she is on the pill and then ‘forgets’ to take it, this is nothing less than emotional and financial rape of a man. She has successfully become pregnant without asking him. She has chained him into an 18 -year future of providing and she has treated him as sperm-donor. Financially and emotionally she has got him by the balls !

The Masculist Response (3) : Some working-class teenage girls will actively go out and seek a sperm donor. They will sleep with half-a-dozen men until they conceive. She will tell each man she seduces that it is ‘safe’ and that she is ‘on the pill’.

Her motives ? To avoid a boring supermarket job, to acquire a council flat, to acquire support from the father and the state for 18 years. (The cost to the tax- payer of each unmarried single- mother was approximately £11K per annum in 1996 ).

Contraception is not male domination, its female domination

3.4 ADULTERY

The Feminist Claim : ‘Women are sexually loyal to one man. Men are permissive’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Female adultery is equally as common as male adultery. All the post 60’s history proves that women are not monogamous. They have never been. Women were always polygamous. Only now (since women have got the pill, and there is no longer any social distinction between recreational sex and sacred sex) are we seeing women in their true colours. - Horny sexual beings who like variety and get bored with one man.

The Masculist Response (2) : It is highly likely that women are more permissive than men. In divorce cases in the 80’s and 90’s the most common reason husbands cited for wanting a divorce was ‘the adultery’ of their wives. This contrasts with the wives who filed for divorce. The most common reason they cited was the ‘unreasonable behaviour’ of their husbands.

Women say men behave unreasonably. Men say women commit adultery.

The Masculist Response (3) : Some adulterous wives become pregnant as a result of their affairs. They never tell their husband. The husband raises the new babe believing him or her to be his own. He never finds out (unless he stumbles across some blood tests and puts two and two together, ) that the child is not his own.

It is estimated that 4%-30% of this generation of children are the bastards of adulterous women. (See press- cutting over).

What a wonderful way for a woman to practise polygamy and get revenge upon her husband for some real or imagined wrong- Have an affair, then make him provide for, and protect, a child that is not even his own !

The Feminist Claim : ‘Women are totally fed up with men, that’s why 75% of divorces are initiated by women’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Lets now revisit the feminist accusation that men have a ‘fear of commitment’.

75% of divorces are indeed initiated by women; but this does not reflect a problem with men - it reflects a problem with women. Women are simply not prepared to stay committed. Women are not prepared to invest the necessary hard work to make a marriage work. Modern women expect a relationship to just happen magically. When it becomes difficult they just give up. The whole ‘fear of commitment’ accusation against men is a massive projection on to us of their own fear of commitment. How dare they lecture us on ‘commitment’ !

The Masculist Response (2) : The modern ‘Ms’ has read too many Cosmopolitans, thumbed too many romantic novels and seen too many Richard Gere movies. She has been told by the feminist propaganda machine that she can have it all. She can have career fulfilment, a wonderful relationship with her children, a mansion, wealth, nightly multiple orgasms, perfect physical health, an incredibly sexy, slim, figure, and the most perfect rapport with her man. Its all out there waiting to be grabbed. The modern ‘Ms’ theme song is ‘I wannit all, and I wannit now’ by Queen.

Masculist will tell the modern Ms that she cannot have it All, because life always has some problems, and she cannot have it NOW, because relationships and wealth take time to build up.

We will explain that ALL relationships are difficult, that what they have been promised in Cosmopolitan and in the movies, is an illusion - that even Richard Gere has feet of clay.

In a nutshell, women lack commitment and are easily tempted by what appears to be greener grass, - that’s why 75% of divorces are initiated by women.

3.5 DIVORCE

The Feminist Claim : ‘Divorced women are saints who need society’s support. ‘

The Masculist Response (1) : During the years 1969-1996 many wives behaved disgracefully during divorce. They slandered their husbands with slurs and lies. The UK charity ‘Families need Fathers’ sent out a questionnaire to 1500 divorced fathers. 63% of respondents said that they had been the victims of spiteful slurs, false accusations of violence, false accusations of marital rape, false claims of child abuse and false claims of financial misconduct. The reason ? Some feminist divorce lawyers encourage false claims as blackmail to gain the lions share of the matrimonial assets. The FNF women, during divorce, hardly behaved like saints !

The Masculist Response (2) : Most men have to pay their own legal costs. Women who are bored with their marriage find legal aid easily. A good feminist solicitor can spin out a legally aided divorce for ever, and drive the legal costs up higher and higher. When it comes to legal costs it is the average man who needs society’s support, not the average woman.

The Masculist Response (3) : Many family law (i.e. , anti-family, ) solicitors are now women. Some run overtly lesbian or feminist practises specialising in ‘cleaning out’ men.

The ‘Families need Fathers’ survey revealed most divorced men ended up with 28% of the matrimonial assets and most divorced women, 72%.

Most men also ended up with child maintenance commitments on top. Such men will be technically bankrupt within 2 years following divorce. Divorce in the UK is now nothing less than the legalised asset stripping of men. Hardly a raw deal for women !

The Masculist Response (4) : The 60’s feminist propaganda (and the courts assumption)was that a divorcing wife has been a wonderful housewife, child-rearer and emotional-support to her husband during marriage. - That somehow the average man couldn’t have held down a job without the support of his wife, and, that, therefore, she should be entitled to half of the assets he worked to build up. (The 60’s feminists started off by claiming just half the assets).

It is a wonderful theory. In the 1950’s it may have been true for our parents generation. But the modern wife is unappreciative, demanding and nagging. She is not a creative contribution to her husband. She is a negative one. Many modern women are lazy housewives, negligent child-rearers, and self-obsessed nagging partners. Their major contribution to the husband is to increase his stress level. Most middle-class men I know, unlike their fathers, didn't get married until they were well into their '30's. By this time they had already built up a successful career. Losing 72% of your assets to a person who came on the scene long after you achieved success is hardly a good deal for men !

The Masculist Response (5) : ‘Ousting’ is a term used to denote a judge’s ruling that a father must be evicted from the matrimonial home. The law arose from feminist lobbying. They demanded protection for ‘a woman who was being violently abused by her husband’. Now- a-days to obtain an ‘ousting’ order, all the modern ‘Ms’ has to do, is to claim she is ‘in fear’ of violence. The husband need never have laid one finger on her. If a woman claims she is ‘in fear’, that is good enough for the judge. 93% of men lose their homes anyway, so the judges figure that it might as well happen sooner rather than later.

Being ejected from your home, and finding yourself homeless is a raw deal, but not for women !

The Masculist Response (6) : Divorce court petitions are heard in ‘closed sessions’- behind closed doors, in secret. The press have no right to enter. The public have no right to enter. No one can question the judgements that are passed, which means that if the average man consistently gets a raw deal, no-one knows about it. There is no way of challenging a system which operates in secret. Secrecy and closed sessions penalises men, not women.

The Masculist Perspective (7) : Judges who sit on divorce courts are elderly WUMPEES. (The patriarchs who feminists formerly loved to hate). Women know that these patriarchs think all ladies deserve special treatment, and all ladies are innocent victims who need the protection of a father-figure. The modern Ms knows how to manipulate these elderly men to get what they want. A smart appearance, with just a hint of leg or breast, some horror stories and lots of tears, and BINGO they are home and dry ! It is naive chivalry of the highest order for these judges to favour women. It is the modern man who gets the raw deal from chivalrous judges, not the modern Ms.

The Masculist Response (8) : The financial awards made by judges are not made on the basis of fault or moral misconduct, but on the basis of political expediency. Their thinking is quite simple : - If a divorced husband does not support his ex-wife’s lifestyle, then the tax payer will have to. No judge wants that. So ex-husbands have to support their ex- wives because ‘husbands have to provide ‘, Better the ex-husband than the tax payer ! It is the punishment of men for no other reason than their gender.

The Masculist Response (9) : Most middle class women who initiate divorce end up with significant assets (the matrimonial home) but little income. Therefore they rely on the tax payer to subsidise them via Income Support.

Most working class mums not only get income support, but since they have no ex-husband to provide a house, they get free council house accommodation, subsidised again by the taxpayer.

Academic feminists laud these women’s success in ‘breaking free’ of men and becoming independent. ‘Men ! ! - who needs them ! ?’ they harp. ‘Men are redundant !’ they gloat.

But are these mums genuinely independent of men ?

The answer is no.

Men pay the lions share of taxes (1/3 of women mother full-time and make no tax contribution; 1/3 of women work only part-time and therefore make insignificant tax contributions; only 1/3 work full-time. Therefore only 1/3 of women contribute anything of significance to the tax pot.)

Contrast this with men. 90% of men who work, work full time. The vast majority of men contribute significantly to the tax pot.

The taxpayer is male. All these so-called ’Independent’ women have done, is to substitute a visible male provider, with an invisible male provider.

Men are not ‘redundant’ for such women. Far from it.

Men as taxpayers, are substitute husbands. The feminists cry for ‘society’ to support divorced and single mums could better be translated as ‘the male taxpayer must support them. ‘When a woman is provided for by one visible man - she has some responsibility to him (in theory at least). When a woman is provided for by a huge number of invisible men, she has no responsibility to any of them, not even for the kind of citizens her child become. What state-dependant women need, is not more hand-outs from the male taxpayer, but a demand that they become accountable.

3.6 CUSTODY

The Feminist Claim : ‘A woman is a superior parent, and therefore should have custody of the children’.

The Masculist Response (1) : Whatever happened to the principle of equality ? Either we all have equal rights , or we don't.

This claim has no substance anyway. If you take the trouble to examine the post 60’s evidence, it is clear that the opposite is true.

If you compare the child-rearing performance of single mothers with single fathers, single fathers perform better. Children brought up by a single mother are,

four times more likely to become illiterate school drop-outs;

four times more likely to become criminals;

four times more likely to commit suicide.

It is said that it behoves the tax-payer to support single mothers, because the single mother’s contribution to society (whilst not financial) is the care and the nurture of future citizens. Fine sounding rhetoric, but what is the reality ?

Too many single mothers produce children who are school truants, school drop-outs, drug users, criminals, and unemployable illiterates. They also produce daughters who also go on themselves to be unmarried mothers and feed off the state. Single mothers are not fantastic parents who produce wonderful children as their contribution to society. Many are totally inadequate mothers who’s bastard and fatherless offspring are a bleeding liability to society !

A woman is not a superior parent, and the damage done to fatherless children - children amputated from their father - is a disgrace to feminism.

FACT : ¾ of youth offenders in New York were raised by single mothers.

FACT : 75% of youth murderers were raised by single mothers.

FACT : 82% of thieves were raised by single mothers.

Fatherlessness is not good for children or for society.

The Masculist Response (2) : The divorce- court judges also believe that mothers make superior parents.

Making a pronouncement upon the natural superiority of one gender or another is a sociological and psychological issue - NOT a legal issue. Judges are not qualified to pontificate on who makes a superior parent.

Since 1969 they have awarded custody to the mother in 93% of cases.

This is gross sexual discrimination.

The Masculist Response (3) : Surely though , I hear you say, haven't judges merely awarded custody to the incumbent house-parent - who happens to be the woman ? Yes, it's a reasonable assumption. But it’s not true. Even in cases where the father has been the incumbent house-parent (and the mother the breadwinner) the divorce judges have still awarded custody to the mother. Families Need Fathers has many examples of such cases.

The Masculist Response (4) : When custody is awarded to a career woman who intends to farm the child off to a series of nannies so that she can pursue her career, the child will not benefit from mother-love anyway so ‘the mother is a superior parent’ rationale is empty rhetoric.

Isn’t it amazing how feminist goalposts move, as time passes.

LIFESTAGE UNSPOKEN MESSAGE FROM WOMEN

Courtship ‘I work full-time. I’m as good as you-(I’m your Equal)’.

Pregnancy : ‘I’m vulnerable. I need you to protect and Infancy provide for me - I’m a helpless little lady. (I’m your inferior)

Divorce : ‘I’m a better parent. I deserve the children - Custody and the home ( I’m your superior’)

3.7 ACCESS

The Feminist Claim : ‘It upsets children to have their lives interrupted by someone who is no longer part of their lives. Fathers shouldn’t have a legal right to access’.

The Masculist Response (1) : In the ‘Families Need Father’s’ survey 81% of fathers reported that access to their children had been obstructed by their former wife. 34% had no contact at all. Here is how such women obstruct :

STAGE 1 - The judge gives dad a ‘right’ to access x times per month.

STAGE 2 - The ex makes lame, false, excuses as to why the first half-dozen appointments have to be cancelled. (‘The child has got a cold, headache, she wants to see her friends, she doesn’t want to see you’ etc. )

STAGE 3 - After cancellation No. 6 he phones up again, to arrange a new appointment, She is out and the answer-phone is on. She doesn’t return his call.

STAGE 4 - He perseveres. After his fourth answer- phone message is not returned, he phones up a fifth time and gives her a mouthful.

STAGE 5 - She changes her phone number and becomes unlisted.

STAGE 6 - He goes to his solicitor (more money) who goes to court. The courts insist that he does have a right to access. Access rights are insisted upon by the judge. Access is arranged.

STAGE 7 - She cancels at the 11th hour with a false reason.

STAGE 8 - He writes a letter, since he doesn’t know her new phone number. She doesn’t reply. He goes round to her home.

STAGE 9 - She goes to court (with legal aid) claiming harassment, and a court welfare officer (female) writes a report saying that the child is happy with her new ‘family’, and shouldn’t be ‘disturbed’.

STAGE 10 - She moves out of the area with her new boyfriend, 200 miles away to Manchester.

Within two years many fathers realise that they are fighting a losing battle and give up hope of being allowed access to their children.

STAGE 11 - He suffers from deep depression.

If a dad goes to court and says that his legal right to access is being defied, the courts will not enforce their access orders effectively. What do they do ? Send the mother to prison ? Hardly !

Tell her to move back from Manchester ? Hardly !

In reality, the courts have no teeth.

The Masculist Response (2) : For many divorced mother’s, their primary concern is not the happiness of the children. It is her own happiness. She wants to lead a new life with a new boyfriend, and doesn’t want the inconvenience of an ex-husband appearing regularly. Her marriage vow means nothing to her. The fact that the kids love their dad means nothing to her. The fact that the children’s gene’s are 50% their dads means nothing to her. The child’s interests are not paramount to her. Her own interests are paramount.

The Masculist Response (3) : Often the paternal grandfather is denied access as well, because of the discomfort and guilt she feels. Grand-pa has a genetic right to access. The children not only have their dad’s genes in them. They also have their grandparents genes in them. There will always be a blood bond with grandpa, but ex-wives are permitted in law, to cut off this blood bond.

The Masculist Perspective (4) : Bona fide step-fathers are also denied access rights. Many step-fathers have raised a child for 5 or 10 years but have no legal right to ever see that child again : - because they never formally married the mother. The law does nothing to protect the deep emotional bond between bona-fide * step-father and step-daughter.

* Bona-Fide = Lived in the same house as the child, and provided for, and protected her for a minimum of 5 years.

3.8 SUMMARY

A woman uses her sexual power to attract and allure a man. The man is expected to take the initiative, but if he misreads a communication, she can prosecute him for harassment or date rape. A woman has contraception power and can trick a man into becoming a father without his consent. Once pregnant she can steal his house and force him to pay 18 years worth of child maintenance. As a sign of his powerlessness, during a marriage proposal a man will symbolically get down on one’s knee and ‘beg’ the woman to marry him. When a woman gets bored with her husband and wants to divorce him the courts automatically award her the matrimonial home, custody of the children and maintenance payments. Without any well founded sociological or psychological rationale.

The only remaining power a man has is access to his beloved children- which his ex-wife can obstruct with ease and with no penalty. Fatherless children are much more likely to become criminals. Many divorced men end up depressed or on the verge of suicide because a legal system which panders to feminist philosophy has made them powerless. The Average Man is power-less because Sexual Politics, Politically Correct laws, and the Divorce Courts, insist he has many Responsibilities, but no Rights.

Political Correctness has emasculated the Average dad, and created a new generation of fatherless, dysfunctional, children.

Masculists are deeply concerned about the plight of divorced dads and about the plight of fatherless children, and unless the culture changes, the damage caused, will continue.


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

Please contact the author via UKMM if you wish to publish the full book