antimisandry.com

False Accusations

Lester Burnham — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:15:24 GMT

Hope folks here find this to their liking. If you do, please go to the site and an give it a rating, and feel free to pass it around, thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRIOSr-w6aU

Calling All MRAs: Road Trip To Burger King! (Hilarious!)

contraeverything — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:28:46 GMT

Hardees/Carl's Jr. is to be commended for its series of commercials that help us appropriately objectify chicks over the last few years.

But because of this, we'll be eating at BK tonight!

Let's face it, sexism just tastes better. I mean, I get to have it MY way.

The Perversion of Feminism (Double Entendre)

contraeverything — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:38:45 GMT

I always maintained that there was something innately twisted about feminism, perverted if you will. How can a semi-reasonable human being seriously maintain that "failing to take a woman's feelings into account" is sufficient reason for separating a father from his children, for instance. And what sort of twisted morality says "my body, my choice" when it isn't really your body being ripped to shreds?

Then, I ran across this while following some femtards on Twitter, gathering some of their tweets for a book of humor on the deep philosophical musings of the self-described feminist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Perverted Femtard

FAQs: Feminist Asked Questions � Fisting for Feminists

Wednesday, 24 June 2009, 12:27 | Category : Safe Sex, Sex Education

By Fannie

Dear Fannie,
I�m a feminist trying to get her kink on. I�m pretty adventerous where sex is concerned and have heard a lot about fisting. I�ve never tried it before but it sounds worth the try. Any tips for a newcomer?
Help A New Dirty Diva

Dear HANDD,

Welcome to the deliciously delinquent world of fisting. Just for clarification for all of our readers, fisting is when a fist, forearm, etc. are inserted into either the anus or vagina of either a man or woman. It�s just my inkling that fisting tends to be more popular amongst the gay male community, but that could easily be merely due to the highly visible kink and BDSM contingent under the queer umbrella (hey, if you�re already getting the shit kicked out of ya for wanting to rub sticks together, I imagine it makes it easier to break other social taboos where sex is concerned).

What fisting is not: punching a person�s vagina or anus; ripping anything
That being said, fisting is not for the feignt of heart, or hole, rather. Like any kind of sex requiring penetration of the anus or vagina, due care and time should be taken before you start playing hand puppet with your ladybits or bussy (that would be boy pussy� as coined by the indelible Rufus Wainwright). Here are a few things you need to know for safe fisting fun (i should disclaim this with the fact that I have never actually partaken in any fisting festivities, but in the course of being an advice columnist have consulted with many a fisting enthusiast):

1: a trusting relationship between fister and fistee - Someone�s hand is going to go inside you. Think about that for a second. The appendage that some person uses to type on his/her keyboard, pick his/her nose, etc. is going to be making all kinds of friendly with either your vaginal wall or lower intestinal tract. Many women and men will not be able to tolerate the kind of anatomical stress that fisting requires, so it�s important that the person who will be sticking his/her arm inside your body be somebody you�re sure won�t fuck it up.

2: Have a safe word � This feeds into step one. Whether you are playing out a scene or getting straight to the point, this is an incredibly delicate sexual activity. The wrong move can be very dangerous on the receptive party. So be patient, and take your time. And if he/she says grapefruit, or whatever your safety word is� than stop, rinse, and try again.

3: Lube, lube, lube, and more Lube � I don�t know how to stress this enough. Use lots and lots of lubrication. It is advised that you use a latex glove when fisting someone in order to prevent those lovely fingernails of your from tearing up the inside of your vaginal wall or rectal canal. Red�s a great color for a top coat, not so much when fisting. So, use lube until you think you�ve used too much� and then use some more. Always use water-based lubricants, i.e. not silicone, as it will wear down the latex glove you use. I�ve also heard of people turning to crisco for lubrication. Whether or not your want the secret to grandma�s flaky pie crust up your peesh is a different question entirely.

4: Prep isn�t just a fashion style � Both women and men will need a significant amount of prep time before fisting can happen, but this is especially so in women who wish to be entered vaginally. Unlike the anus which can be relaxed and expanded psychologically and with the aid of muscle relaxers, the vagina�s elasticity in this situation is mostly derrived from the woman�s arousal. You know what that means! Foreplay, and a lot of it. Stimulating the clitorus is a good start, but include other erogenous zones on the body. Women report higher rates of sensitivity in places like nipples, behind the ear, neck and stomach, so try and push buttons that often get overlooked.

5: Confucius say: Less Fist, more Lotus � When entering the vagina or rectum, it�s important not to try and close your hand into a fist and jabbing it right in there. That will only result in your punching your partner�s bussy/ladybits. Shape your hand so that all fingers come to a point, like a lotus flower. Only a drag queen could make fisting sound like yoga, eh? You might not be able to get all five fingers in at once, so go one at a time until all fingers can enter and exit with general ease. When you make the final push to go inside, go slowly and know that once you get past the knuckles, the worst has passed. Once inside, you can form your hand back into a ball.

6: Spining Around � Kylie Minogue had the right idea. When fisting it�s usually less about the traditional plunging in-out method of normal fucking. It�s best to start, rather, with rotating the hand inside the vagina or rectum. So think polar and less vector. Only the mathletes will get that reference. And if you are a mathlete engaging in fisting, hats of to you, my friend� hats OFF!

7: Fisting is like Hiking, The zenith is only halfway � So once the fistee comes or has his/her fill of the fabulous fisting action, it�s important to remember that getting your hand out of the vagina or anus may take as much time as it took to get in, in the first place. It�s likely that this process can be aided by the smooth muscle�s natural desire to expunge material from those orifices. Again, take your time and don�t rush this. A quick withdrawl can leave do as much damage as a hasty entrance. Hmm� funny how sex advice also applies to foreign policy.

So that�s that my friends. Hopefully you�ll find your fisting fantasies fulfilled and fabulous. Until next time, Auf wiedersehen!

Send you questions to fannie@feministforchoice.com

So what are you waiting for? Send her your questions!

USA Jezebel.com Bashes Roy Den Hollander

bababob — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:01:35 GMT

Since Roy Den Hollander has the cojones to fight them in court, I knew it was only a matter of time before the Feministas would try to take him down a peg or two. Here's the article by another Feminass with a Celtic moniker (It seems like an awful lot of these witches are called Megan for some reason,)

NYC Attorney Out To Reclaim His Ex Wife From Feminism's Clutches, Get Laid Easier

By Megan

"About eight years ago, Roy Den Hollander was living the high life. He'd just returned to New York from a decade working in Russia with a pretty, young, docile Russian bride in tow and was set to live the high life. Then he found out what all his friends and acquaintances in Russia knew but hadn't told him (and I know, because I called some of them and asked): that she'd married him for her green card and his money and set on about divorcing him. He admits that he's still bitter ..."

http://jezebel.com/5038521/nyc-attor...et-laid-easier

France Launches Attack Against Islamic Resistance to Feminism

Otis the Sweaty — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:01:27 GMT

http://www.feministing.com/archives/....html#comments

The French are banning the Burka. They are doing this for two reasons:

1. To piss of the Islamic immigrants in France
2. To force Feminism on French Muslims the way that Attaturk in Turkey forced Feminism on his population (which they are only now finally starting to throw off).

Ofcourse, being brain dead retards, most Feminists are against what the French are doing because its "racist". However, some of the more intelligent Feminists realize that France is fighting the Feminist battle and are wisely supporting the French governments attempt to spread Feminism.

Feminists Outraged by Criticism of Illegal Parasites

Otis the Sweaty — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:44:38 GMT

http://www.feministing.com/archives/016291.html

Some background on this: Michael Savage is a right wing shock jock based in California. His actual name is Michael Weiner but he changed it so people wouldn't know that he is Jewish. The guy is weird and shrill and has become increasingly unhinged since the Obama victory and the implosion of CA.

I'm not a fan of the guy at all, but his impassioned screed against the invaders from South of the border is right on the money and most importantly, really pissed off the illegal loving Feminists.

The Anatomy of Abuse

George Rolph — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:21:58 GMT

The Anatomy of Abuse
April 7, 2004
by George Rolph

While this paper cannot be a definitive guide to the nature of the abuser, the victims relationship with the abuser and society's part in encouraging gender bias, I hope it will add to the pool of knowledge. It is my hope that, at least in a small way, this paper will be an aid towards helping us all understand the nature of domestic abuse and those who perpetrate or encourage it.
The abusers -- Actors in disguise.

First and foremost abusers are actors. It makes no difference what gender the abusive personality is, their primary skill is to emulate normal behaviour in order to disguise their own condition.
I have spoken to many victims of abuse who say that the person they met and fell in love with �gradually changed� into a monster. This is often one of the most confusing and distressing aspects of abuse from the victims point of view. It is also a situation that the abuser will exploit with varying degrees of vicious skill. While it is impossible to be specific on these subjects in every case, careful observation and research have uncovered certain general consistencies I want to discuss here. The question is; what is going on in the abuser's mind that causes them to suddenly, or gradually, become abusive to their new partner?
It appears that the abusive personality has learned, by observation and by mimicry of those around them, how to give every appearance of normality and stability for often quite extended periods of time. This means that they are able to convince new partners that they are really charming, wonderful people who should be trusted and are worthy of love and care. This act is easy to maintain in certain social situations and where the abuser has minimal contact with others in an average day. For example, in a work situation where he/she will be in contact with others for a maximum of eight hours per day. Another social situation may be one of casual friendships made in pubs and clubs. Under these conditions the actor (abuser) need only be convincing as a normal person for a minimum amount of time. This is why many friends of the abuser find it hard to believe that the person they think they know could be capable of such barbarity within a long term relationship. In the case of female abusers, this difficulty is compounded by social and political myths that see females only as victims and not as perpetrators.
For the abusive actor, maintaining the act of normality within a long term relationship is almost impossible. The intensity of the time spent in the company of the victim means the emotional strain placed on the pretender, by their need to hide their true selves, becomes too difficult to maintain. The act breaks down and the real personality disguised beneath it rushes to the surface. To the victim, the sudden outbursts of aggression from the previously �loving� and �charming� personality they fell in love with, is both mystifying and deeply confusing. The victim, often still in love with the abuser, begins to make excuses for the abusers behaviour. Mentally sweeping it under the carpet and falsely believing that things will get better in time. This is not difficult to understand. Anyone who has fallen in love knows the huge investment of trust, emotional/mental commitment and selflessness it takes make the relationship work. It is natural for the victim to assume that the other person has made the same efforts as they have and this primes them to accept the abusers excuses and rationalisations of their behaviour.
The abusers self-view

An abusive personality is fundamentally one of self loathing and even self hate. However, this self disgust is too painful for them to accept. Desperate to �fit in� with everyone else they justify the abusive behaviour they cannot avoid and deny the rest. The denial can be very profound and will drive their negative feelings about themselves very deeply within their tortured psyche. Many abusers are deeply frightened and horrified by their violent outbursts but their denial prevents them from dealing with the feelings that cause them. Therefore, when they lose control and abuse another, there often follows what looks like deep and sincere repentance and begging for forgiveness, only to sink back into the same patterns again later on. Given enough time, even these feelings of regret and remorse will become buried and their emotional attitude to their abuse of others will harden into a cold uncaring outlook. For this reason, I believe it is vital that treatment be applied to the abuser while they still own feelings of remorse and regret. Treatment of the abuser will become progressively more difficult over time as the abuser will lack the necessary need and drive to want to reform.
In order to avoid owning up to what they feel about themselves the abuser will project their self hatred onto their victims. Where this occurs it sets up the classic abuser/victim relationship. I will expand upon this relationship later in this document, but for now I wish to return to the abusers view of themselves and its consequences in their lives.
We have seen how the abusive personality often feels about themselves but why does this self hatred come about? There may be myriads of reasons but there are some common threads that I have noticed in my studies, my experiences of abuse and my observations of abusers. Many of those who become abusers report that they have grown up in abusive homes themselves or, have experienced abuse later on in their lives. When probed about how these experiences have affected them, almost all report feelings of anger and even intense rage that they themselves are frightened by.
To a child growing up in an abusive home, even though the behaviour they are witnessing and experiencing from others deeply disturbs them, they consider it to be �normal.� It's all they know, so for them, this is what normal family life is all about. However, the deep fears and anger raised in them by their abusers have little or no avenue of expression within the home. To become angry, or even show dissatisfaction with their treatment, may very well lead to an escalation of the abuse against them. This fear of retaliation drives the feelings they naturally have about their abusers deep within themselves. The only way to cope with the feelings of fear and anger is to deny and bury them or take them outside of the home in anti social behaviour. *
When the abused child becomes an adult, if they have not dealt with these feelings of rage buried deep within themselves, they are almost certain to resurface within their adult relationships.
Adults have a tendency to recreate what they considered normal in their early life at home, within their own adult relationships. If they grew up in a chaotic and fear filled environment it is natural for them to feel at home within that kind of family dynamic. Subconsciously they may well be building relationships they feel are well known to them and no matter how painful those relationships are, they feel �normal.�
Some abusers are simply psychopaths. They enjoy the feelings of power they have over the victim and may well go on to kill them if early intervention is not forthcoming.
Other abusers simply come to hate their partners over time and instead of leaving the relationship, set out to destroy the other person (and sometimes other people) within it.
All abusers enjoy the feelings of power they have over their victims at some level, but not all abusers are psychopaths. Abusers are often deeply selfish individuals who live in a �me me� world where only their own feelings, needs and desires are important. When the abuser expresses love for the victim it is often not because they feel that love, it is often because they want something from the victim that threats will not get them. My own abuser, for example, would become tender, gentle and kind whenever she wanted me to help her with something she could not manage alone. Afterwards, my efforts to help her would be ridiculed as inadequate.
Some abusers will abuse others by proxy and this seems to be a predominantly female trait. I have received calls to my help line from men who have been beaten up by other men when their abusive female partner has told another man that her victim had expressed a desire to sleep with the attackers infant child, for example. Other forms of this abuse include making false allegations to family members or the state authorities in order to have someone else attack or arrest the victim.
Another form of abuse by proxy is to withhold contact unreasonably from a parent with his/her child. In such a case, the abuser is using the state apparatus to continue abuse after the relationship has ended. This constitutes abuse of the child concerned and the adult denied contact. I also consider false rape allegations that can utterly destroy a persons life to be abusive behaviour that is all too often unpunished by the state.
For those who have experienced abuse in later life but who had relatively happy childhoods there may well be a subconscious element of revenge in their subsequent abusive behaviour. In the case of the female abuser this may be hugely reinforced by articles in women's magazines that portray men as nothing but bad, soap opera stories, dramas, movies, press stories about female abuse victims, and the constant and relentless pressures on women by radical feminist groups to see all men as dangerous and who paint men as predatory violent animals and women as poor victims being preyed upon. Even advertising on the television that portrays men as useless and stupid may reinforce her hatred of males and feed her feelings of the need to take revenge against all men for what one man has done to her.
Such thoughts and feelings are covered by the umbrella term, Misandry. A misandrist is a hater of men. There are many more of these people around than is popularly believed. Many of them are writing the things referred to above or are part of the organisations promoting hatred of men in our society.
Such a scenario is also possible in the case of a male abuser who resents being typecast in these ways by �evil women� and sets out to justify his violent behaviour by seeing himself as some kind of avenging angel. His thoughts and feelings of hatred and resentment towards women are embraced by the term, Misogynist. It is well known there are many of these men around, however, criticising female behaviour is not the same as hating females. An important distinction needs to be made between the two for any rational debate on these issues to succeed. **
* It is interesting to note that over 90% of males in prison come from broken homes, yet societies in the western world actively promote single motherhood as a virtue while discouraging marriage. That this is creating a huge problem for the future and singularly lacking any kind of wisdom should be obvious to all.
** A common defensive ploy of radical feminists is to paint any and all criticism of females as hatred of them and, by so doing, pressure people (chiefly men) into regarding a counter argument as mysoginistic in origin and therefore worthy of being ignored.
The victims relationship with the abuser.

The victim and the abuser have a complicated relationship that is difficult, at times, to define in simple terms. I will do my best here to look at the most common traits of that relationship as I have understood them.
Initially, as stated above, the victim will often have no idea their partner is abusive. (Those who do, and remain in the relationship, may well be attempting to �help� the abuser and this is a very dangerous thing for those with little or no knowledge of abusive personalities to attempt. It is difficult enough for a professional to help an abuser, it is certainly not something an amateur should attempt). As the ability to maintain the act of normality under the constant scrutiny of a close partner breaks down, so the real and disturbed person beneath the act will emerge. The first signs that all is not well may be anything from a slow escalation of irritable behaviour to a sudden explosion of violence.
It is important here to make another careful distinction. Not every act of irritable behaviour or sudden aggression means a person is automatically an abuser. All of us get out of bed on the wrong side sometimes. The key indicator is the frequency with which the behaviour occurs.
The most common indicator that one is living with an abuser will be that individuals need to control everything about the victim. This need to control will become all consuming over time and is common to both male and female abusers. * This need to control others seems to stem from two strong desires within the abusive personality. The first, is a desire to remain hidden and the second, is a desire not to feel inferior. In order to understand these two desires it is important to realise that abusers are deeply fearful people who are terrified of the strong and overwhelmingly powerful feelings raging within them. It is this fear that drives their need to bury those feeling as deeply within as possible and then to deny them when they rush to the surface.
Let us look first at the desire to remain hidden.
Within a close personal relationship it is perfectly natural for both parties to closely examine each others personalities and to explore each others feelings. This examination is what the abuser fears most. To the abuser, such a close look at who they are becomes deeply threatening. They spend their wholes lives hiding their true selves both from themselves and from society. They loathe themselves and often fear their capability for violence. They cannot bare coming under scrutiny and this innocent searching by their partner can often be the trigger for their abusive reactions as they try to halt the exploration of their deeper and hidden selves by using intimidation and/or violence. Yet their need to appear normal drives them to seek out a partner and have a �normal� relationship. **
The desire not to be inferior stems from a different set of unconscious dynamics.
We all remember the bright kid in school who was always picked on for being �the teachers pet.� That child stood out in the crowd and by virtue of the fact the he/she was smarter than the rest, made the rest feel inferior. By picking on the bright kid the others were trying to pull that child down to their level in order for them to lose their sense of inferiority. Unmerciful and constant teasing and/or bullying can force the bright child to conform to the wishes of the rest, and those bright kids who join the pack, quickly find the persecution stops. In a similar way, the abuser tries to drag their partner down to their level. This can be achieved by constant bullying and by a technique I have dubbed, verbal machine gunning.
To machine gun verbally means to fire a constant and rapid stream of accusations and insults without ever giving the victim time to answer any of the points made. These insults will often be projections of how the abuser really feels about themselves. For example; if the abuser feels strong feelings of jealousy towards the victims friends and associates, then the abuser accuses the victim of being jealous of him or her. Again, the abuser may feel inadequate in the kitchen, or driving, and so accuses the victim of being a crap cook or a lousy driver. Whatever the accusations are, they will often be delivered at high volume and in such rapid succession that the victim will be both terrified, confused, outraged and hurt, and with so much going on at once within them, feel totally unable to respond. A sort of mental and emotional paralysis ensues that may eventually lead to the complete collapse of the victim. At this stage the abuser is almost drunk on the feelings of power over the victim and if violence is to occur it may happen at that moment of evil euphoria. Victims have told me that they have seen the abuser �smiling down� at them with sick delight as they have folded beneath such onslaughts.
The reasons why the abuser does not want to give the victim time to answer are twofold. Firstly the abuser has absolutely no interest in the thoughts, concerns or feelings of the victim and secondly, the abuser is not interested in dialogue, but only in control over the victim. In the abusers world view, life is all about the great �ME� and not the little �you.�
The extent of control over the victim can sometimes be very far reaching indeed. I have spoken to many male and female victims whose abusive partners have chosen what food they eat and when. What clothes they wear and when. What times they are allowed out of the house and when to come home. Who they are allowed to be friends with and who they must never see. What time they are allowed to sleep and when they must wake up. When they can see their children and when they cannot. What relatives they can visit and those they cannot. What music they can enjoy. What purchases they can make. How much of their own money they can spend. And on and on.
Abusers who fear a partner may be about to leave them will often run up huge debts for their partner. Some will slander their name in the local community in the hope of stopping anyone else being interested in them. Poison the victim. Send abusive text messages to their phones. Stalk the victim or damage the car to prevent them leaving. Keep the victim from his/her children. Threaten suicide. Accuse the victim of rape or sexually molesting children. Make threatening or silent calls late at night. Destroy his/her property. Keep him/her at home against his/her will. Increase the level of violence. Threaten to kill the kids if she/he leaves. Try to ruin his/her reputation by spreading lies about him/her to his/her family and friends. Threaten suicide. Turn the children against the victim. Find and attack him/her in her/his new home etc.,.
All of this behaviour is about control and dominance over the victim. All of it is negative and destructive behaviour. It is unlimited in its creative evil and the two lists above are by no means extensive and neither are they mutually exclusive. Each gender is as capable of these things as the other.
* Indeed, so prevalent is this trait that careful and informed questioning by police officers called to a domestic abuse incident may well quickly illicit who is the real abuser and who is the real victim. Something that many police officers need to understand if they are to ever stop making the wild assumption that all abusers are male and all females are victims.
** This may be why many abuse victims are kind, gentle, loyal and deeply loving people. Most abusers will not seek confrontation with people who may fight back. They want easy targets that they can dominate. For the male and female abuser that will often mean a passive personality type is sought as the next victim.
�Treatment� for victims of abuse to avoid.

The co-dependancy (co-alcoholic) idea was first developed to explain other family members reactions to living with an addict and the harmful effects of those reactions. It is an entirely reasonable idea based on sound research. However, during the 1980`s the definition of codependency was expanded beyond all reasonable bounds, by people looking to make quick money by selling cheap books, to include virtually any form of caring for another. Simply put, this means that any and all caring behaviour is a form of psychological illness unless the person being cared for is the self. It could almost have been written by today's radical feminist element who advocate blaming others for the way we feel while accepting no responsibility for our own actions.
The pushers of the modern codependency therapy system of mock psychology will tell you that as a victim of abuse your feelings of caring for the abuser are wrong. (In fact, they will tell you that almost everything you feel about other people is wrong.) But caring for others is not a pathological condition. My advice is to avoid these peddlers of doom like the plague. Being a caring person is not wrong but, excessive selfishness is, and in fact, is one of the symptoms of the abuser.
Robert Westermeyer, Ph.D. Has the following to say about the current codependency �fix all� sweeping book shops and chat shows on both sides of the Atlantic.
�Why would a psychologist wish to criticize the codependency idea? Many people claim to have been helped by codependency books and codependency self-help groups. I don't wish to take away anyone's belief that they are better for having integrated the codependency idea into their lifestyles. But it definitely isn't for everyone. Codependency is a nebulous idea, born not of science but of the gut feelings of counsellors and frustrated lay people. Its black and white requirements for recovery, though seeming reasonable on the surface, are not in line with empirical research and have dangerous implications with regard to the most human of attributes, caring. My two primary concerns with the codependency idea are:
The Codependency Idea Pathologizes the Natural Tendency to Care for Others.
The cure for Codependency Mandates Action which is Not Necessarily in Line With Pro social Values.� (Emphasis mine)
He goes on: �A case from several years ago comes to mind involving a caring mother who's 27-year old daughter had been abusing prescription opioids and benzodiazapines for ten years. The daughter finally made the decision attempt a methadone detox, following two months of methadone maintenance. The MD at the methadone clinic recommended that she taper the benzodiazapine, which was Valium (methadone doesn't cover non-opiate drugs). The mother was very invested in her daughter's change efforts and subsequently flew in from out of state to live with her while she detoxed. She agreed to dole out the Valium because the daughter felt that she could not do it on her own without relapsing. The mother hid them in her car and stood watch over her daughter during the first three weeks of her transition. The patient voiced that her mother's presence was imperative for relapse prevention at this time. The mother voiced that it made her feel as though she was finally doing something to help daughter which was panning out. She felt so good about her efforts that she went to an Al-anon meeting. She was literally attacked by three attendees who deemed her behavior enabling and, in addition to deeming her responsible for her daughter's enduring problems with substances, instructed her to go back to her home immediately and let her daughter grapple with her troubles on her own. One said, "She's an adult, and a time comes when you have to let them leave the nest or you're just perpetuating the illness."
Thankfully, this woman had enough conviction and confidence in her values to blow off the advice. Many people don't have this much tenacity to their standards. Many are given such guidance and are left in a complete quandary. The mother's contention was that her daughter was completely responsible for her choice to use or not use. She recognized that her daughter had crippling problems with anxiety and panic and had used the drugs to medicate these states. Though her daughter made the choices, she felt that there was a way she could help her daughter follow through with her motivation to better her life. She knew that if she went back home, her daughter would relapse and that relapse at this point would be devastating to her daughter, who had tried just about every method of quitting imaginable. She fathomed that her daughter might discount the whole methadone choice and revert to prescription drug abuse again.�
With attacks like those above on a mothers need to be involved in her daughter's recovery from drug addiction, it makes one wonder at times if the psychopaths are running the asylum!
It is a pervasive and disturbing view that relies more on �feelings� than serious research and it is to the medical and political establishments shame that these views have found any credence at all within today's society because they have kept silent in the face of such popularist, false and dangerous ideas.
Instead of buying into these �instant happiness� so-called solutions to modern living learn about assertiveness and ways in which you can better manage the situation you find yourself in. The best advice that can be given to a victim of abuse is still, get out of the relationship as fast as you can! Nobody in their right mind likes to see themselves as a victim but the truth is, that until you have broken free from the relationship and overcome the effects of the abuse, a victim is what you are. Once you have overcome the effects of the abuse -- and with the right help, that is almost always possible -- you become a survivor. The ease of transition from victim to survivor will depend entirely upon yourself, the quality of the help you receive if any is needed and the extent to which you were abused. If you wish to cut down on the time needed to recover and be your old self again, leave the abuser as soon as you possibly can.
Gender bias in the abuse industry and society

The domestic abuse industry is saturated in gender bias as any examination of the literature it produces will show any reasonable person. From the thousands of so-called �studies� carried out by special interest groups, to the leaflets and advertising surrounding the abuse phenomenon, it is obvious that society has blinkers on when it comes to thinking about who perpetrates the abuse. The questions are, why has this bias come about and who are the victims of it?
Answering the second question first, the answer is simple: Men!
Answering the first question is very complex and beyond the scope of this paper to examine in great detail. However, I would like to touch upon the more obvious examples. At the risk of being accused of misogyny (woman hating) for daring to criticise anything the �fairer sex� does or says, I am nevertheless going to do so.
First of all the domestic abuse industry is run almost entirely by women. Many of these women are themselves victims of abuse or have worked closely with female victims of abuse. This, I submit, tends to give these women a skewed and deeply prejudicial view of men. At their most harmless these views will be shaped by the experiences these women have suffered and make them tend to be suspicious of anything men may do or say about abuse. At the worst, these views may lead to a pathological hatred of men and a deep desire for revenge. I suggest that both of these views are common within the abuse industry today. What is more, I suggest that these are the reasons why the female dominated abuse industry is almost totally unable to even countenance that women can be abusive also, irrespective of the evidence we might show them to prove otherwise. Their minds have become set into two broadly entrenched positions:
1. Men abuse women and women do not abuse men.
2. If women abuse men then men deserve it.
That these prejudices have been taken up by western political thinkers is beyond dispute. It is also increasingly evident that police forces, the medical establishment and the media as a whole in the western world, have also adopted these bigoted and dangerous attitudes towards male victims and female perpetrators. The message sent out by these attitudes to female abusers is, �do what you like.�
This �woman as victim and men as perpetrator� mind set is not only deeply offensive to all the male victims out there, it is also dangerous for society as a whole. Like all prejudice it has implications for the future that are horrifying to contemplate but, the implications for today are also deeply worrying. For example; when we allow one gender carte blanche to abuse another we are failing to consider the innocent victims of that abuse. The children, grand parents, brothers and sisters who witness the destruction of a loved one or (in the case of kids) learn to become abusers themselves, as well as the victim. We have seen how a women, subjected to non stop terror and violence in the home, can snap and kill her abuser. Yet, we do not afford the same damaging effects on a male victims emotional life. In fact, if he snaps and kills his abuser we victimise him all over again by vilifying him in the press and locking him up in jail. Personal abuse is not enough, it also becomes political and legal abuse if you are a man.
Is it just the abuse industry that generates this prejudice? The answer to that question is, no. The abuse industry perpetuates these myths of man=bad, woman=good but there are other roots in society that also need to be cut out once and for all.
As an example of the extreme prejudice aimed at men throughout society lets look at a T Shirt on sale here in Britain. The T Shirt has a cartoon of a young boy emblazoned on the front. A rock is seen heading for the young boys head. This picture is set beneath the words, BOYS ARE STUPID....THROW ROCKS AT THEM. Anyone viewing this T Shirt would probably smile and say, �Its just a bit of harmless fun.� However, if we reverse the gender and make it a little girl cartoon and change the words to read, GIRLS ARE STUPID....THROW ROCKS AT THEM. Suddenly it becomes an incitement to hatred.
Further examples of this selective politically correct thinking can be found in almost any of the modern women's magazines. Articles describing men in general as anything from stupid, unthinking animals, to downright dangerous, predatory monsters can be found in almost any of the thousands of periodicals on sale in British newsagents. Hundreds of books have been written that do nothing but portray men and boys as complete idiots or dangerous sexual beasts. However, were men to begin writing about women in the same terms, the outrage and protest would be massive. Prejudice, it seems, is fine if you are a female but offensive if you are a male.
Perhaps the most suprising thing about all of this is that many men buy into it. Not only do they buy into it but they become advocates of it. Its almost like black men joining the Ku Klux Klan and helping to rid the planet of those �stupid niggers.� It astounds me that some men have done this and lived up to the �men are stupid� stereotype many radical feminists have portrayed them as for 40 years. It also demonstrates the incredible power of media led brainwashing!
Many women, who know very well what other members of their sex get up to in terms of violence and the emotional abuse of others, are probably the most guilty of all people in society. By their cowardly silence they give a nod and a wink to their �sisters� to continue the abuse of children and men.
The politician, the policeman and policewomen, the General Practitioner, the journalist and the lawyer are all guilty of the most astounding double standards and extreme prejudice when it comes to even looking at the evidence for the existence of male victims. Even our social scientists baulk at the idea of a man being a victim of female abuse, yet the reasons they give for their prejudice are -- like all reasons for prejudice -- laughable in their demonstration of inept thinking.
Policemen who have had to call for help while struggling to load a drunken and violent female into the back of a police van on a Friday night will still say, �Well, it stands to reason that a women who is half the size of a man cannot do much damage to him.� The politician who has to ensure the safety of their citizens from the threat of a female terrorist with explosives strapped to her body from wiping out dozens of people will still say, �It goes against the instincts of nurturing in women to kill others.� The journalist filing a story about females who kill, injure or maim others (including children) will still say, �Women are incapable of inflicting much damage on people.� Likewise judges, who sit daily and listen to horrifying stories of females abusing kids or making false rape or sexual molestation charges against men will still say, �I do not believe that women are naturally capable of violence or deceit.� Such stupidity in the face of huge evidence to the contrary is mind blowing to me, yet it is so common it appears everywhere.The mindthat is soaked in prejudice truly is a swamp of contradictions and blind brutal dishonesty.
How does all of this affect the male abuse victim? The answer is as simple as it is direct... No one believes him!
From the household'sfamily doctor who refuses to �get involved� when the man says he is being abused by his wife; to the nurse at the hospital all to willing to probe the cause of suspicious injuries on a female patient but whose mind is as closed as a steel trap when the patient is male. From the police officer swayed by the �victim act" of the sobbing female abuser and who then arrests the real victim; to the lawyer who talks the man out of applying for the restraining order because �the judge will not believe you.�From the male victims �friends� who ridicule him when he asks for help; to the men's movement leaders too stupid to realise the implications of this policy of denigrating males. All are equally as guilty as each other of ignoring deep and real concerns and the evidence of their own eyes. All, by their complicit silence, are as guilty of abusing that man as if they wielded the pan of boiling water she threw over him themselves.
A few facts and questions.

In great Britain, at the last count, women had 423 refuges. Men have 3.
Women's groups receive over 30 million pounds per year from government and police sources. Heterosexual Male support groupsget nothing.
Scientific studies fromall over the western worldhave shown again and again that domestic violence against men occurs equally to domestic violence against women, yet western governments have actively suppressed these facts, preferring to use instead, the wildly inaccurate �reported crime statistics� method of determining the prevalence of domestic abuse against the two genders. At the same time, the British government, for example, publicly acknowledges that �most men DO NOT report domestic abuse against themselves.�Therefore, if the government acknowledges that most men do not report the abuse they suffer, why do they insist on using reported crime statistics (which they acknowledge are inaccurate) to influence funding decisions while, at the same time, ignoring the evidence from their own scientific studies? *
Men and boys are subjected to massive amounts of prejudice in everything from education provision; medical cancer research (breast versus testicular for example); housing provision; Divorce; the right to bring up their children alone; hugely insulting articles; newspaper stories and books; job security issues as a result of so-called �positive� discrimination; discriminatory advertising on the television; hate speech; political discrimination; legal rights and censorship of the male point of view in the media. If men complain about this they are ridiculed and called whiners sometimes by other so-called men in the media but, most often, by radical feminist media spokesmen. This prejudice has led to an explosion of single mothers and the most confused and damaged generation of children our country has ever known. Will someone please tell me the benefits of this utopian radical feminist, left wing view of modern society?
* For a great cautionary tale of statistics and their manipulation go to this page on the Web: http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...2004/0324.html

Copyright � George Rolph, April 2004. Founder of No More Silence. Contact: grolph(@)no-more-silence.org

You say you are a man - what does that mean?

julie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:58:46 GMT

Who are you? What are you? Why are you?

If you had men's studies in University what would you study?

Would you say, "There is nothing to study because I stand here just as I am?'

Or would you take a trip in time and look at all the things that has happened to man to come to your conclusion?

Would you consider that a great man lived named Jesus Christ and that he changed history forever? Would you consider how religion used the reasoning that man had a soul only if he lived a certain way, paid taxes and went to war? Did you know women were considered not to have a soul because they were uncontrollable until the 1600's?

Would it even interest you that you wear chains not just to serve God but all the elite that has ever existed in society?

Or do you think life is all about "man buys a house, finds a woman to marry and has children?" Do you think that is all there is to life? And that a man is really condemned by God to labour from an early age till death because he sinned in the Garden of Eden? And that it is with God's blessing that he serve the elite of society?

Are you really happy? Or do you wait for a woman to come along and make you happy?

Do you think you are alive to just procreate?

Have you ever asked yourself about your existence and have you ever wondered how you seem to have the ability to understand, reason and think for yourself?

Maybe your answer is so much more simple. Maybe you think you are free and that is what makes you a man.

I take a chance to ask this question because tradition is on the line? But what is tradition?

Who are you?

Transwomen, maybe?

RookRoost — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:48:34 GMT

I've made a personal resolve. I'm am going to pursue transwomen. It's not a slight to you female memebers, or supporters ( god bless you ) it's just that they are as attractive as natural-born women, but have had to endure ridicule, abuse and a negative view of themselves their entire life. I suspect, that maybe, just maybe they will have a modicum of sympathy for ignored and maligned males, since they used to be in the past. I'm not looking for miracles, because these transwomen ARE women, at least regarding their ego ( self-image), so I could be walking into a trap the same as a natural born woman would likely cause me ( entitlement, princess syndrome, etc,), but I'm willing to give them the doubt. They have been men, after all, and perhaps they have an understanding that normal women do not possess. They realise the stupid things that your dick can make you do.

I made a joke earlier about turning gay for the benefits. I'm sorry, after looking at the post and ruminating, i realise that was completely innapropriate. I really am truly sorry if I offended anyone. But on further examination, I realised that one of my best bets is to attach myself to someone who has experienced the same male-hating, matriarcal system for so long.

I'm not putting transwomen on pedestal, I've known trnasgendered people in my life, and they ARE ego-wise and mentally the opposite sex. So I might be setting myself up for as great a fall as with natural-born women. But...

They have beeen male, they have experienced the irrational sexual desires put on us males by our 'little head'. Perhaps they have an insight that I can relate to. And besides, they are just as attractive as natural-born females.

Again, I'm not trying to alienate the female members or supporters of this site. I am glad you are here:). But a person who has been in similiar circumstances and maybe have empathy is a hard attraction to turn away from.

Best wishes, my friends
Jon
(rookrooost)

Challenging Trendy Biological Assumptions.

Percy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:44:08 GMT

We don't seem to have a section on 'human sciences'. Perhaps because of the woeful state of said discipline. So I put this here.

People are always putting excuses for bad behaviour - even OK behaviour - by reference to our hairy progenitors in caves. I am forever taking the piss out of some of the things that even MRAs claim about human nature, and that's before I even dig into the feminazi claims.

Men have evolved to be ..... goes this one and that. It's in our nature, they say, based on half-baked ideas by some dork who provides nothing but a post-hoc rationalisation for their own peculiarities or those of someone she wishes to blame and shame. Margaret Mead was not alone in having her research confirm her own nutty ideas - a favourite pastime (at public expense) of feminist researchers.

But significant questions are being raised at last.

get you head around this small feast.

Quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202789

Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?

Among scientists at the university of New Mexico that spring, rape was in the air. One of the professors, biologist Randy Thornhill, had just coauthored A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which argued that rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them.

Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, the 2000 book contended, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.

The argument was well within the bounds of evolutionary psychology. Founded in the late 1980s in the ashes of sociobiology, this field asserts that behaviors that conferred a fitness advantage during the era when modern humans were evolving are the result of hundreds of genetically based cognitive "modules" preprogrammed in the brain. Since they are genetic, these modules and the behaviors they encode are heritable�passed down to future generations�and, together, constitute a universal human nature that describes how people think, feel and act, from the nightclubs of Manhattan to the farms of the Amish, from the huts of New Guinea aborigines to the madrassas of Karachi.

Evolutionary psychologists do not have a time machine, of course. So to figure out which traits were adaptive during the Stone Age, and therefore bequeathed to us like a questionable family heirloom, they make logical guesses. Men who were promiscuous back then were more evolutionarily fit, the researchers reasoned, since men who spread their seed widely left more descendants. By similar logic, evolutionary psychologists argued, women who were monogamous were fitter; by being choosy about their mates and picking only those with good genes, they could have healthier children. Men attracted to young, curvaceous babes were fitter because such women were the most fertile; mating with dumpy, barren hags is not a good way to grow a big family tree.

Women attracted to high-status, wealthy males were fitter; such men could best provide for the kids, who, spared starvation, would grow up to have many children of their own. Men who neglected or even murdered their stepchildren (and killed their unfaithful wives) were fitter because they did not waste their resources on nonrelatives. And so on, to the fitness-enhancing value of rape. We in the 21st century, asserts evo psych, are operating with Stone Age minds.

Over the years these arguments have attracted legions of critics who thought the science was weak and the message (what philosopher David Buller of Northern Illinois University called "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for heinous behavior) pernicious. But the reaction to the rape book was of a whole different order. Biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University called it "the latest 'evolution made me do it' excuse for criminal behavior from evolutionary psychologists." Feminists, sex-crime prosecutors and social scientists denounced it at rallies, on television and in the press.

Among those sucked into the rape debate that spring was anthropologist Kim Hill, then Thornhill's colleague at UNM and now at Arizona State University. For decades Hill has studied the Ache, hunter-gatherer tribesmen in Paraguay. "I saw Thornhill all the time," Hill told me at a barbecue at an ASU conference in April. "He kept saying that he thought rape was a special cognitive adaptation, but the arguments for that just seemed like more sloppy thinking by evolutionary psychology." But how to test the claim that rape increased a man's fitness?

From its inception, evolutionary psychology had warned that behaviors that were evolutionarily advantageous 100,000 years ago (a sweet tooth, say) might be bad for survival today (causing obesity and thence infertility), so there was no point in measuring whether that trait makes people more evolutionarily fit today. Even if it doesn't, evolutionary psychologists argue, the trait might have been adaptive long ago and therefore still be our genetic legacy. An unfortunate one, perhaps, but still our legacy. Short of a time machine, the hypothesis was impossible to disprove. Game, set and match to evo psych.

Or so it seemed. But Hill had something almost as good as a time machine. He had the Ache, who live much as humans did 100,000 years ago. He and two colleagues therefore calculated how rape would affect the evolutionary prospects of a 25-year-old Ache. (They didn't observe any rapes, but did a what-if calculation based on measurements of, for instance, the odds that a woman is able to conceive on any given day.) The scientists were generous to the rape-as-adaptation claim, assuming that rapists target only women of reproductive age, for instance, even though in reality girls younger than 10 and women over 60 are often victims. Then they calculated rape's fitness costs and benefits.

Rape costs a man fitness points if the victim's husband or other relatives kill him, for instance. He loses fitness points, too, if the mother refuses to raise a child of rape, and if being a known rapist (in a small hunter-gatherer tribe, rape and rapists are public knowledge) makes others less likely to help him find food. Rape increases a man's evolutionary fitness based on the chance that a rape victim is fertile (15 percent), that she will conceive (a 7 percent chance), that she will not miscarry (90 percent) and that she will not let the baby die even though it is the child of rape (90 percent). Hill then ran the numbers on the reproductive costs and benefits of rape.

It wasn't even close: the cost exceeds the benefit by a factor of 10.

"That makes the likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation extremely low," says Hill. "It just wouldn't have made sense for men in the Pleistocene to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it's preprogrammed into us doesn't hold up."

These have not been easy days for evolutionary psychology. For years the loudest critics have been social scientists, feminists and liberals offended by the argument that humans are preprogrammed to rape, to kill unfaithful girlfriends and the like. (This was a reprise of the bitter sociobiology debates of the 1970s and 1980s. When Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson proposed that there exists a biologically based human nature, and that it included such traits as militarism and male domination of women, left-wing activists�including eminent biologists in his own department�assailed it as an attempt "to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or sex" analogous to the scientific justification for Nazi eugenics.)

When Thornhill appeared on the Today show to talk about his rape book, for instance, he was paired with a sex-crimes prosecutor, leaving the impression that do-gooders might not like his thesis but offering no hint of how scientifically unsound it is.

That is changing. Evo psych took its first big hit in 2005, when NIU's Buller exposed flaw after fatal flaw in key studies underlying its claims, as he laid out in his book Adapting Minds. Anthropological studies such as Hill's on the Ache, shooting down the programmed-to-rape idea, have been accumulating. And brain scientists have pointed out that there is no evidence our gray matter is organized the way evo psych claims, with hundreds of specialized, preprogrammed modules.

Neuroscientist Roger Bingham of the University of California, San Diego, who describes himself as a once devout "member of the Church of Evolutionary Psychology" (in 1996 he created and hosted a multimillion-dollar PBS series praising the field), has come out foursquare against it, accusing some of its adherents of an "evangelical" fervor.

Says evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci of Stony Brook University, "Evolutionary stories of human behavior make for a good narrative, but not good science."

Like other critics, he has no doubt that evolution shaped the human brain. How could it be otherwise, when evolution has shaped every other human organ? But evo psych's claims that human behavior is constrained by mental modules that calcified in the Stone Age make sense "only if the environmental challenges remain static enough to sculpt an instinct over evolutionary time," Pigliucci points out.

If the environment, including the social environment, is instead dynamic rather than static�which all evidence suggests�then the only kind of mind that makes humans evolutionarily fit is one that is flexible and responsive, able to figure out a way to make trade-offs, survive, thrive and reproduce in whatever social and physical environment it finds itself in. In some environments it might indeed be adaptive for women to seek sugar daddies. In some, it might be adaptive for stepfathers to kill their stepchildren. In some, it might be adaptive for men to be promiscuous. But not in all. And if that's the case, then there is no universal human nature as evo psych defines it.

That is what a new wave of studies has been discovering, slaying assertions about universals right and left. One evo-psych claim that captured the public's imagination�and a 1996 cover story in NEWSWEEK�is that men have a mental module that causes them to prefer women with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 (a 36-25-36 figure, for instance). Reprising the rape debate, social scientists and policymakers who worried that this would send impressionable young women scurrying for a measuring tape and a how-to book on bulimia could only sputter about how pernicious this message was, but not that it was scientifically wrong.

To the contrary, proponents of this idea had gobs of data in their favor.

Using their favorite guinea pigs�American college students�they found that men, shown pictures of different female body types, picked Ms. 36-25-36 as their sexual ideal. The studies, however, failed to rule out the possibility that the preference was not innate�human nature�but, rather, the product of exposure to mass culture and the messages it sends about what's beautiful. Such basic flaws, notes Bingham, "led to complaints that many of these experiments seemed a little less than rigorous to be underpinning an entire new field."

Later studies, which got almost no attention, indeed found that in isolated populations in Peru and Tanzania, men consider hourglass women sickly looking. They prefer 0.9s�heavier women. And last December, anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan of the University of Utah reported in the journal Current Anthropology that men now prefer this non-hourglass shape in countries where women tend to be economically independent (Britain and Denmark) and in some non-Western societies where women bear the responsibility for finding food.

Only in countries where women are economically dependent on men (such as Japan, Greece and Portugal) do men have a strong preference for Barbie. (The United States is in the middle.) Cashdan puts it this way: which body type men prefer "should depend on [italics added] the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive."

Depend on? The very phrase is anathema to the dogma of a universal human nature. But it is the essence of an emerging, competing field. Called behavioral ecology, it starts from the premise that social and environmental forces select for various behaviors that optimize people's fitness in a given environment. Different environment, different behaviors�and different human "natures."

That's why men prefer Ms. 36-25-36 in some cultures (where women are, to exaggerate only a bit, decorative objects) but not others (where women bring home salaries or food they've gathered in the jungle).

And it's why the evo psych tenet that men have an inherited mental module that causes them to prefer young, beautiful women while women have one that causes them to prefer older, wealthy men also falls apart. As 21st-century Western women achieve professional success and gain financial independence, their mate preference changes, scientists led by Fhionna Moore at Scotland's University of St Andrews reported in 2006 in the journal Evolutionand Human Behaviour .

The more financially independent a woman is, the more likely she is to choose a partner based on looks than bank balance�kind of like (some) men. (Yes, growing sexual equality in the economic realm means that women, too, are free to choose partners based on how hot they are, as the cougar phenomenon suggests.) Although that finding undercuts evo psych, it supports the "it depends" school of behavioral ecology, which holds that natural selection chose general intelligence and flexibility, not mental modules preprogrammed with preferences and behaviors.

"Evolutionary psychology ridicules the notion that the brain could have evolved to be an all-purpose fitness-maximizing mechanism," says Hill. "But that's exactly what we keep finding."

One of the uglier claims of evo psych is that men have a mental module to neglect and even kill their stepchildren. Such behavior was adaptive back when humans were evolving, goes the popular version of this argument, because men who invested in stepchildren wasted resources they could expend on their biological children. Such kindly stepfathers would, over time, leave fewer of their own descendants, causing "support your stepchildren" genes to die out. Men with genes that sculpted the "abandon stepchildren" mental module were evolutionarily fitter, so their descendants�us�also have that preprogrammed module.

The key evidence for this claim comes from studies showing that stepchildren under the age of 5 are 40 times more likely to be abused than biological children.

Those studies have come under fire, however, for a long list of reasons. For instance, many child-welfare records do not indicate who the abuser was; at least some abused stepchildren are victims of their mother, not the stepfather, the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect reported in 2005. That suggests that records inflate the number of instances of abuse by stepfathers.

Also, authorities are suspicious of stepfathers; if a child living in a stepfamily dies of maltreatment, they are nine times more likely to record it as such than if the death occurs in a home with only biological parents, found a 2002 study led by Buller examining the records of every child who died in Colorado from 1990 to 1998. That suggests that child-abuse data undercount instances of abuse by biological fathers. Finally, a 2008 study in Sweden found that many men who kill stepchildren are (surprise) mentally ill. It's safe to assume that single mothers do not exactly get their pick of the field when it comes to remarrying.

If the men they wed are therefore more likely to be junkies, drunks and psychotic, then any additional risk to stepchildren reflects that fact, and not a universal mental module that tells men to abuse their new mate's existing kids. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson of Canada's McMaster University, whose work led to the idea that men have a mental module for neglecting stepchildren, now disavow the claim that such abuse was ever adaptive.

But, says Daly, "attempts to deny that [being a stepfather] is a risk factor for maltreatment are simply preposterous and occasionally, as in the writings of David Buller, dishonest."

If the data on child abuse by stepfathers seem inconsistent, that's exactly the point. In some circumstances, it may indeed be adaptive to get rid of the other guy's children. In other circumstances, it is more adaptive to love and support them. Again, it depends. New research in places as different as American cities and the villages of African hunter-gatherers shows that it's common for men to care and provide for their stepchildren. What seems to characterize these situations, says Hill, is marital instability: men and women pair off, have children, then break up. In such a setting, the flexible human mind finds ways "to attract or maintain mating access to the mother," Hill explains.

Or, more crudely, be nice to a woman's kids and she'll sleep with you, which maximizes a man's fitness. Kill her kids and she's likely to take it badly, cutting you off and leaving your sperm unable to fulfill their Darwinian mission.

And in societies that rely on relatives to help raise kids, "it doesn't make sense to destroy a 10-year-old stepkid since he could be a helper," Hill points out. "The fitness cost of raising a stepchild until he is old enough to help is much, much less than evolutionary biologists have claimed. Biology is more complicated than these simplistic scenarios saying that killing stepchildren is an adaptation that enhances a man's fitness."

Even the notion that being a brave warrior helps a man get the girls and leave many offspring has been toppled. Until missionaries moved in in 1958, the Waorani tribe of the Ecuadoran Amazon had the highest rates of homicide known to science: 39 percent of women and 54 percent of men were killed by other Waorani, often in blood feuds that lasted generations. "The conventional wisdom had been that the more raids a man participated in, the more wives he would have and the more descendants he would leave," says anthropologist Stephen Beckerman of Pennsylvania State University.

But after painstakingly constructing family histories and the raiding and killing records of 95 warriors, he and his colleagues reported last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , they turned that belief on its head. "The badass guys make terrible husband material," says Beckerman. "Women don't prefer them as husbands and they become the targets of counterraids, which tend to kill their wives and children, too." As a result, the �ber-warriors leave fewer descendants�the currency of evolutionary fitness�than less aggressive men.

Tough-guy behavior may have conferred fitness in some environments, but not in others. It depends. "The message for the evolutionary-psychology guys," says Beckerman, "is that there was no single environment in which humans evolved" and therefore no single human nature.

I can't end the list of evo-psych claims that fall apart under scientific scrutiny without mentioning jealousy. Evo psych argues that jealousy, too, is an adaptation with a mental module all its own, designed to detect and thwart threats to reproductive success.

But men's and women's jealousy modules supposedly differ. A man's is designed to detect sexual infidelity: a woman who allows another man to impregnate her takes her womb out of service for at least nine months, depriving her mate of reproductive opportunities. A woman's jealousy module is tuned to emotional infidelity, but she doesn't much care if her mate is unfaithful; a man, being a promiscuous cad, will probably stick with wife No. 1 and their kids even if he is sexually unfaithful, but may well abandon them if he actually falls in love with another woman.

Let's not speculate on the motives that (mostly male) evolutionary psychologists might have in asserting that their wives are programmed to not really care if they sleep around, and turn instead to the evidence. In questionnaires, more men than women say they'd be upset more by sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, by a margin of more than 2-to-1, David Buss of the University of Texas found in an early study of American college students.

But men are evenly split on which kind of infidelity upsets them more: half find it more upsetting to think of their mate falling in love with someone else; half find it more upsetting to think of her sleeping with someone else. Not very strong evidence for the claim that men, as a species, care more about sexual infidelity. And in some countries, notably Germany and the Netherlands, the percentage of men who say they find sexual infidelity more upsetting than the emotional kind is only 28 percent and 23 percent.

Which suggests that, once again, it depends: in cultures with a relaxed view of female sexuality, men do not get all that upset if a woman has a brief, meaningless fling. It does not portend that she will leave him. It is much more likely that both men and women are wired to detect behavior that threatens their bond, but what that behavior is depends on culture. In a society where an illicit affair portends the end of a relationship, men should indeed be wired to care about that. In a society where that's no big deal, they shouldn't�and, it seems, don't. New data on what triggers jealousy in women also undercut the simplistic evo-psych story.

Asked which upsets them more�imagining their partner having acrobatic sex with another woman or falling in love with her�only 13 percent of U.S. women, 12 percent of Dutch women and 8 percent of German women chose door No. 2. So much for the handy "she's wired to not really care if I sleep around" excuse.

Critics of evo psych do not doubt that men and women are wired to become jealous. A radar for infidelity would indeed be adaptive. But the evidence points toward something gender-neutral. Men and women have both evolved the ability to distinguish between behavior that portends abandonment and behavior that does not, and to get upset only at the former. Which behavior is which depends on the society.

Evolutionary psychology is not going quietly. It has had the field to itself, especially in the media, for almost two decades. In large part that was because early critics, led by the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, attacked it with arguments that went over the heads of everyone but about 19 experts in evolutionary theory. It isn't about to give up that hegemony. Thornhill is adamant that rape is an adaptation, despite Hill's results from his Ache study. "If a particular trait or behavior is organized to do something," as he believes rape is, "then it is an adaptation and so was selected for by evolution," he told me.

And in the new book Spent, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico reasserts the party line, arguing that "males have much more to gain from many acts of intercourse with multiple partners than do females," and there is a "universal sex difference in human mate choice criteria, with men favoring younger, fertile women, and women favoring older, higher-status, richer men."

On that point, the evidence instead suggests that both sexes prefer mates around their own age, adjusted for the fact that men mature later than women. If the male mind were adapted to prefer the most fertile women, then AARP-eligible men should marry 23-year-olds, which�Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall notwithstanding�they do not, instead preferring women well past their peak fertility. And, interestingly, when Miller focuses on the science rather than tries to sell books, he allows that "human mate choice is much more than men just liking youth and beauty, and women liking status and wealth," as he told me by e-mail.

Yet evo psych remains hugely popular in the media and on college campuses, for obvious reasons. It addresses "these very sexy topics," says Hill. "It's all about sex and violence," and has what he calls "an obsession with Pleistocene just-so stories." And few people�few scientists�know about the empirical data and theoretical arguments that undercut it. "Most scientists are too busy to read studies outside their own narrow field," he says.

Far from ceding anything, evolutionary psychologists have moved the battle from science, where they are on shaky ground, to ideology, where bluster and name-calling can be quite successful. UNM's Miller, for instance, complains that critics "have convinced a substantial portion of the educated public that evolutionary psychology is a pernicious right-wing conspiracy," and complains that believing in evolutionary psychology is seen "as an indicator of conservatism, disagreeableness and selfishness." That, sadly, is how much too much of the debate has gone. "Critics have been told that they're just Marxists motivated by a hatred of evolutionary psychology," says Buller. "That's one reason I'm not following the field anymore: the way science is being conducted is more like a political campaign."

Where, then, does the fall of evolutionary psychology leave the idea of human nature? Behavioral ecology replaces it with "it depends"�that is, the core of human nature is variability and flexibility, the capacity to mold behavior to the social and physical demands of the environment. As Buller says, human variation is not noise in the system; it is the system. To be sure, traits such as symbolic language, culture, tool use, emotions and emotional expression do indeed seem to be human universals.

It's the behaviors that capture the public imagination�promiscuous men and monogamous women, stepchild-killing men and the like�that turn out not to be. And for a final nail in the coffin, geneticists have discovered that human genes evolve much more quickly than anyone imagined when evolutionary psychology was invented, when everyone assumed that "modern" humans had DNA almost identical to that of people 50,000 years ago. Some genes seem to be only 10,000 years old, and some may be even younger.

That has caught the attention of even the most ardent proponents of evo psych, because when the environment is changing rapidly�as when agriculture was invented or city-states arose�is also when natural selection produces the most dramatic changes in a gene pool. Yet most of the field's leaders, admits UNM's Miller, "have not kept up with the last decade's astounding progress in human evolutionary genetics."

The discovery of genes as young as agriculture and city-states, rather than as old as cavemen, means "we have to rethink to foundational assumptions" of evo psych, says Miller, starting with the claim that there are human universals and that they are the result of a Stone Age brain. Evolution indeed sculpted the human brain. But it worked in malleable plastic, not stone, bequeathing us flexible minds that can take stock of the world and adapt to it.
With Jeneen Interlandi

Renee Continues to Attack Jessica

Otis the Sweaty — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:37 GMT

http://www.feministing.com/archives/016227.html

Jessica got her worthless ass on CNN to talk about what a whore she is or something and Renee (predictably) ripped into her for not bringing up WOC. Courtney defended Jessica and Renee then attacked Courtney.

The exchange is entertaining, but was great was what Renee wrote on her blog about the clip: "Normally, knowing that the segment featured Valenti would cause me not to watch it..."

Absolutely great line.

Transgendered Attraction

RookRoost — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:16:26 GMT

I'm confident enough in my sexuality to admit that i love trans women. I find them to be honest, willing to suffer all sorts of abuse, because their ego (sense-of self) is so strong and certain. I can already sense the posts of 'people pretending to be what they are not.' I have seen it many times on this forum, and it's complete bullshit. If you think for just a second, rationally, why would a person seek out abuse and institutionalised disgust? For attention? I'm sure that is one of the FEW reasons why men feel the need to 'switch' sides.
Another is that they realise that, at heart, they are women. I tend to agree with them. Are you so presumptious to know the thoughts and dreams of another person? Hubris , pure and simple.
Think about it, these transwomen ( and from what I've seen, they have been beautiful since childhood, with no augmentation necessary,)
Please stop attacking these people. They demonstrate what MRA is all about. Not being ashamed of who you are, not letting people dictate to you what your life SHOULD be like. Being who you are, instead of what society demands you should be.
Please, I beg of you, leave these honorable people alone. They are just trying to get by, the same as you.

I know I'm going to be labeled ;'gay' or 'queer'. Fine with me . You don't know me, so your attacks mean little to me. I know who i am, and if it involves reviling people who know that they are different from what they were genetically 'designed' for. Count me out.

I love tranwomen, maybe because they have experienced the maddening organ known as the cock, dick, purple headed love warrior, one -eyed sex snake, hot beef injection, skin-flute, meat whistle, or any other euphemisms for a phallus you can come up with.

Enough with the trangendered and gay people. They haven't suffered enough?

Childless on Father's Day

Percy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:02:37 GMT

Quote:

EDITORIAL: Childless on Father's Day < http://www.mensenews.org/index.php?option=com_jb2&PostID=756&view=post&Item id=2 >

By Washington Times -- Editorial 6/21/2009
"Some kids will be surprising their fathers with breakfast in bed this weekend, while others will present a gift inscribed with the phrase, "world's best dad."

Some men, though, will only be reminded of the heartache from losing the opportunity to become fathers. They are the third victims of abortion. ...Arthur B. Shostak, professor of sociology at Drexel University, is one of a team of academics who took a hard look at men and abortion over a 20-year period. Their findings shatter the common myth that men are more likely to abandon women who get pregnant rather than support them. Most men in the survey reported that ending a pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only 5 percent didn't support the abortion.

However, nearly half of single and divorced men said they had suggested getting married and having the baby. As many as 1 in 6 men are never told about a pregnancy or an eventual abortion. Almost 50 percent of men don't show up at an abortion clinic to accompany the mother on the day of the procedure, according to Mr. Shostak and his team. While in some cases these fathers might fit the stereotype of the rogue who is abandoning the mother of his child, a large percentage opposed the abortion or were too distraught to come along.

Mr. Shostak's study found that more than 1 in 4 men equated abortion to murder. A little over 80 percent surveyed said they had already begun thinking about the child that might have been born, with 29 percent saying they had been dreaming about the child "frequently." Fully 68 percent said men involved in abortions "did not have an easy time of it," and 47 percent worried about having disturbing thoughts afterward. Mr. Shostak reported that many men began to cry during his interviews."

Feminist Whore Disowns Father

Otis the Sweaty — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:01:35 GMT

http://community.feministing.com/200....html#comments

This is a post by some young whore on Feministing talking about how her father is evil because he opposes faggots getting married.

I am starting to develop more respect for Evangelical Christians. While they aren't as good as Muslims, they are a rapidly growing demographic who are doing a great deal to resist Feminism. And as this Feministing post shows, Evengelical Christians are good at getting even non religious people to support reactionary causes.

Liberals should all die, especially liberal women.

So this is kinda awkward...

Youngone_2011 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:10:17 GMT

So I had sex for the first time and was underwhelmed. Is this common or what?

Australia "Are Women more violent than they used to be"

Zuberi — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:32:05 GMT

The Daily Telegraph (Australian National Daily) ran a story this morning that the rate of female DV has increased by 159% in 8 years, also pointing out this was an increase of 11% per annum, while male DV is rising by 2% per annum.
Its actually a very decent article and quoted Reg Price, who runs the Men's Rights Agency. It even pointed out the problems men have being beleived by our Police and also the lack of shelters for men. NineMSN (Australia's version of MSN) couldnt bring themselves to run the story of course, but did make the issue the question for todays poll - "are women becoming more violent?". Interesting to see how feminists try to mis-direct attention away from this story. Excerpt:
'WOMEN are becoming more violent towards their partners.
Shocking figures have revealed that the number of women who have been charged with domestic violence-related assault has soared by 159 per cent over the past eight years.

USA 'The Death of Macho'

Zuberi — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:24:36 GMT

Essay here. This essay left me speechless. Reihan Salam's e-mail address: salam-at-newamerica.net. Excerpt:
'For years, the world has been witnessing a quiet but monumental shift of power from men to women. Today, the Great Recession has turned what was an evolutionary shift into a revolutionary one. The consequence will be not only a mortal blow to the macho men�s club called finance capitalism that got the world into the current economic catastrophe; it will be a collective crisis for millions and millions of working men around the globe.
...
Although not all countries will respond by throwing the male bums out, the backlash is real--and it is global. The great shift of power from males to females is likely to be dramatically accelerated by the economic crisis, as more people realize that the aggressive, risk-seeking behavior that has enabled men to entrench their power--the cult of macho--has now proven destructive and unsustainable in a globalized world.

Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!
Soon our thoughts will be a crime!
Do you still think there is no NWO?:cool:

Mens Movement History: The Term Masculinist

bababob — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:00:45 GMT

This is a history of the MRM, given by Doug Schocke, Ph.D. Here are some samples:

"I was active in the men's movement since 1975, with time off for good behavior until the mid 1980s, and sporatic subsequent forays of interest. My observation and participation in the men's movement has let me see several different perspectives. In the men's movement I observe are in three current forms; the male feminist, the male liberationists (and/or the masculinist), and the mythopoetic background."

"Mythopoetic men's movement assumptions about the male role in pre-industrial society are an idealized perfection. They present the male role with no awareness of social institutions and structure. The story has a caged wildman that the prince frees who becomes the prince's mentor as symbolically the "real man" within all men. This true inner man must be challenged, coached and tested into manhood, to be true to the wildman within. This fairy tale of tests does not contact the major male struggles of modern men."

MORE: http://www.schocke.com/masculin.html

Please. Guys. Can we discuss the pleasant experiences we've had with women?

RookRoost — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:52:03 GMT

I have just gotten so down, reading these disenheartening posts and articles about these reprehensible feminist bitches. Could some of you share positive experiences with women ( if any ) that you have had?:confused:

Three major myths about marriage.

Travis A. Ramirez — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:36:16 GMT

Due to a request I received I was doing some historical reading on the topic of the evolution of marriage. It is surprising, at least to me, how many modern myths about marriage exist. Primarily this is due to the fact that the so-called defenders of traditional marriage are not defending traditional marriage at all�they are defending their own unique religious version of marriage.

Their version tends to go along the lines that marriage is a �God-ordained� institution that is between one man and one woman and has been so for all of history. They often make more ridiculous claims as well. By �God-ordained� what they mean is the Christian deity in particular. The alleged gods of other faiths don�t matter to them.

So let us look at some of these myths, and a few others, about marriage.

Myth #1

Marriage has not always been about one man and one woman. History is filled with accounts of polygamy. Some of the most fanatical defenders of �traditional marriage,� the Mormons, are themselves frequently descendants of polygamists. Mormonism taught polygamy and condemned the �one man, one woman� concept of marriage.

The Bible, for what it is worth, claims that polygamy was quite common with the leading prophets and characters of Scripture. Esau had two wives; Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar. We are told that King David had multiple wives and concubines both, as did Solomon. The Ethnographic Atlas discusses some 1231 societies in history. Of those only 186 practiced monogamy. Four allowed multiple husbands and the rest, 1041 of them, practiced polygamy to one degree or another. Polygamy is still practiced around the world and some Mormon fundamentalists still practice their own unique form of polygamy.

There has never been a time when marriage was exclusive limited to �one man and one woman.�

Myth #2

It is claimed that marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex. Christians, in particular, are known to make this pronouncement with utter assurance. Yet this simply is not true.

Consider that the Christian emperor of Rome, Theodosius II, created a code of Christian law for the Roman Empire. In that code he specifically banned same-sex marriage. Why? Why ban something that was never practiced? In fact it was practiced and it was well known.

One historian writes:

Marriages between males or between females were legal and familiar among the upper classes. Even under the Republic, as has been noted, Cicero regard the younger Curio�s relationship with another man as a marriage, and by the time of the early Empire references to gay marriages are commonplace. The biographer of Elagabalus maintains that after the emperor�s marriage to an athlete from Smyrna, any male who wished to advance at the imperial court either had to have a husband or pretend that he did. Martial and Juvenal both mention public ceremonies involving the families, dowries and legal niceties.

In the case involving the great Roman statesman, Cicero, he was approached by Curio the Elder asking for advice. Curio�s son was in a marriage relationship with another male. Cicero�s own description of the two men was that they were �united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he [Curio the Younger] had given him [his partner] a matron�s stola.� The stola was an item that married women wore to indicate they were off the marriage market.

A related myth, I might add, is the nonsense spouted by Conservatives that the collapse of Rome came about because it tolerated homosexuality. As already noted, Rome under Christian rule, became more intolerant of homosexuality long before it collapsed. The banning of same-sex marriage was the first step of a series of anti-gay laws. In addition to becoming more socially intolerant Rome became more and more authoritarian during the last days of the Empire. For instance, Theodosius also had 65 edicts against so-called heretics. In essence Rome became less economically free, less socially tolerant and more war-like and this fatal combination destroyed Rome. (For an economic history of the Roman welfare state see The New Deal in Old Rome.) Rome was tolerant of gays when during its height and least tolerant before its collapse. Christians, however, did become tolerated and they ruled Rome during the fall of the empire.

Link: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...-marriage.html