THE LOST BOYS? HAS THE MEDIA-CREATED IMAGE OF MEN WHO NEVER GROW UP SPAWNED A NEW GENERATION OF MALES EAGER TO PROVE THEIR WORTH?

June 23, 2012

I was heavily quoted in this piece about women’s sexism. Here is the note I received stating that the magazine article was now posted. He also referred to my new book to be published in January

John,

Thank you again for your willingness to talk about the media perception of men. We have developed that story and do have it online. You will receive an email from Burgundy but I wanted to personally send you the link. Thank you again for your wonderful input (http://www.burgundymag.com/index.php/health/wellness/415-media-perception). It was greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Kevin

J. Kevin Powell
PIIP Media, LLC
1532 Bubbling Creek Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30319
http://www.PIIPmedia.com
http://www.BurgundyMag.com
PIIP Media is a company focused on changing how we view society through uplifting entertainment that is commercially viable. We believe in developing a strong empowering presence in our community by creating an energy through our products that recasts the world in a brighter light. Our media, and associated products, rejuvenate the souls of those who use them.

Category: Wellness
Published on Friday, 22 June 2012 14:02
Written by J. Kevin Powell

 
Just a few years ago, a minivan commercial showed a father, so eager to shut out the sounds of his children, he couldn’t wait to get them in the car to turn on the DVD players. Dr. Richard Horowitz was so enraged he wrote the automaker who soon removed the commercial.
 
Jason Hundley, an X-ray Tech in Radcliffe, Kentucky, continually avoids the pack of women at work who constantly refer to men as children, dogs and ‘just like the men on tv’. Incensed even more by the “we know you’re not like that” comments, he’s searched for ways to fight for male rights.
 
Affected by the omnipresent definition of happily every after being limited to the woman’s determination of the meaning, John Wilder, a marriage coach, has seen the build up of anger in men over the years. He attributes the demeaning media perception of men to misandry and reeducates couples on roles in their relationships.
 
Dr. David Power, who abhors the Tim the Tool Man stereotype portrayed through various television shows and commercials, routinely does the laundry and cooks for himself. With a baby in the house, his two sons know when he calls a code brown, to get diapers, wipes and help daddy change the baby’s diaper. He’s started a fight club.
 
While the media continues to portray men as grown kids who need to be coddled and directed by the strong hand of their mother-like spouses, men throughout America are fighting back. Men are growing weary of this characterization, even in a limited tongue and cheek manner.
 
“Men who are more mature and have families, those men are somewhat confused about the world,” said Dr. Horowitz, who now runs GrowingGreatRelationships.com with his wife.
 
The appreciation for the everyday male has seemed to wane in recent history. It seems as if a male simply takes care of his home, he’s still doing something wrong. If he does dress well, then he still may not be metrosexual enough. If he is a good guy, he doesn’t possess enough raw aggression to spark the chemistry of a bad boy. And if he is a bad boy, well, of course he’s a project that can be fixed.
 
But a large amount of confusion seems to be attributed to the power of the feminist movement and the confusion that era has brought to men in America.
 
Origins
 
Women’s rights began in 1913 but didn’t end in 1920 when women received the right to vote. In her book,Stiffed, Susan Faludi attributes much of the change of women’s gender roles to WWII when many women were needed to work in support of the war effort and take care of both gender roles at home.
 
This period sparked an undercurrent of misandry as men returned home and attempted to reinsert themselves into their traditional gender roles, roles women now knew they could perform.
 
However, John Wilder, author of the soon to be published Sex Education for Adults, Secrets to Amazing Sex and Happily Ever After Too, states rearing of women during this period did not significantly change. Many women were not, and still are not, raised in a critique-friendly environment similar to young men.
 
As women learned to openly analyze men’s actions, there was no education on how receiving it. Even worst, men learned never to say anything.
 
“The number one complaint I get from men is women do not make it safe to critique women,” said John. “Women say they want equality, but they want absolute dominance. Most [men] had coaches and grew up accepting critique where women take it personally.”
 
John states that while women sought equality socially, they didn’t accept it within their interpersonal relationships.
 
Dr. Powers knows too well the application of this thought. Gathering with his church fight club, men often tell stories of intentionally doing some type of chore or assignment wrong. Feeling there is no way to do the task right without being criticized, or being able to make any critical comment, why even try?
 
Passive aggressive men give in recognizing they’ll eventually lose the fight and she’ll correct whatever he did anyway, John added. Women who feel they’ve been critiqued go through fanatic efforts to teach their male partner to never critique them again.
 
As female writers, advertisers, marketers and others in media continue to increase their influence, and men who either stay silent or help push the stereotype continue using the perception in the name of ‘what sells’, men continue to see the media images of them grow in ways that are uncomfortable.


Its The Little Things, Another Great Guest Post

July 28, 2010

I was on another blog which I will not mention on here because I don’t want to give them any publicity. A young woman was posing the question about what she should do about her boyfriend who was going to college to be a teacher while she was going to law school. She stated that she never thought of her relationship being that of the breadwinner. I took her to task suggesting that she would not be the bread winner but just make more money than her boyfriend future husband. He would contribute, and she would contribute to THEIR MONEY she was not going to be the bread winner. She was considering dumping the “perfect boyfriend” simply because he would not make more money than she would, a notion heavily promoted by her parents.

I was attacked and called names even the the majority of the posters on the blog basically agreed with my position.l I was told that I was too blunt and took her out at the knees. These were the civil remarks. There were several others who attacked me, made fun of me and ganged up on me. I am a big boy, but they were not indicating their disagreement with me but using personal attacks.

This is indicative of many in our society. If they percieve any critique, they go on the attack and all the more if they can get a frew friends to join in the attack. Is this how you handle critique. It is not helpful nor mature.

Some commented negatively calling me a perv because I suggested that women give their husbands more sex and offer them oral sex. I talked about the rampant misandry in this country ( reverse sexism by women against men). They suggested that men could just masturbate or go out and cheat. If feminists really believed in equal rights then the man would have a night on and the woman could have the next night off. That is equality. The feminsts disargreed with that notion of course and I was called a misogynist, sexist pervert wtih a penis the size of a cocktail wiener.

So I decided to post this guest post of a woman who has her head screwed on straight about what is really important. So read and consider what is important and what a woman’s role should be in a relationship with a man. So read away and tell me what you think.

Here is the link to her blog http://chanellemonique.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/its-the-little-things/#comment-85

The Little Things That Count
They say out of tragedy comes triumph, and while I’ve gone through my own personal experience of tragedy I’m still waiting for my triumph to come along. I’ve been through a great deal in my life, and like anyone who has gone through anything substantial I’ve been left a forever changed woman. I see myself as the same woman I always was when it comes to my morals, worth, and foundation, but my experiences have caused me to reevaluate what is really important and what I truly value.

In a world where money is king and materialism floods the world like the rains of hurricane Katrina once the levees failed on New Orleans it’s easy to see how some get swept up in the superficial and forgetting what truly matters. I have a friend who like all too many is a product of this materialistic world we live in. Whenever I ask how he’s doing his answer remains steady and unchanging he’s fine but staying on his grind trying to stack his dough, get that paper, and retire by the time he’s forty-five. After you’ve heard it twice you’ve heard it a million times. While I think it’s fantastic someone is so dedicated to their career, and goals I can’t help but feel sorry for him and others who can’t see happiness in their lives without money. While those that are religious pray and worship to whomever their almighty God is, there are far too many worshipping the almighty Dollar. No Creflo.

While money is important and necessary to our very existence it isn’t everything. Of course having it makes everything easier, allows one to live a comfortable lifestyle, and can buy you the finer things in life, but that’s not enough for me. In my opinion the things most important are the things that money can’t buy. I won’t sit here and lie to anyone saying I don’t wish I had more of the spendable green stuff because I do, but not for the reasons most think. I’ll admit I’m a girl who absolutely loves purses, and adores shoes so much that my shoe habit is a borderline addiction, and whose taste is a bit more on the side of Dior than Dollar General but those things are not the most important things to me. I don’t wish for the type of money Oprah has, but I would like the type of money that would have my family, friends and I comfortable for the rest of our lives. I’d make sure that no one ever feared losing their house, as we all have found out in an economy like this foreclosure is just a missed mortgage payment away for any of us. Sallie Mae would no longer be the bitch that harasses us monthly with her hand out, but rather a distant memory, and the all too familiar phrase “I can’t go or do that because my money is funny” wouldn’t exist. Whatever needs my family and friends have would be taken care of and that’s a better gift to me than even the most beautiful Christian Louboutin pumps.

One thing my friend who insists he’ll be retired by forty-five and I do have in common is family. Family is the most important thing to us, but unlike me he believes the key to their happiness as well as his own is money, while I on the other hand understand money would be an added bonus, but definitely isn’t going to make or break our happiness. Family…It’s all we got, we only have one and whether I’m dirt poor or filthy rich they’re going to love me regardless and there’s nothing more valuable than that. So while we’re all spending that money as though it flows like water, it’s only fair for us to spend more time with family and friends.

Most materialistic items bought are sure to depreciate in value, but time spent with family and friends grows in worth, is appreciated and leaves us with enough memories to last a lifetime. We’re not going to be here forever so while we are we have to use the time we’ve got. There’s no going back once our time is up once someone dear to us has been called to their eternal home. So the next time you reach in your purse or wallet to make that next purchase for a friend or family member remember the gesture is nice, but nine times out of ten they’d trade it for a little more time spent with you. If you don’t’ believe me just ask someone who’s recently been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer who has only been given two months left to live, or someone who just lost someone would they rather have a brand new Bentley or their loved one back. I promise you they’d choose the little things over the materialistic any day.


Feminists Are the Ruin Of Marriages, and Your Sex Life

June 28, 2010

It is appalling what feminists and feminist counselors tell couples about sex. They say that women should only have sex when they feel like it and disregard their husband’s feelings. The feminists would say that a woman should not allow herself to be a “sexual slave” to her husband. There are even some feminists claiming that any married sex amounts to rape. This is not conducive to resolving sexual conflicts in a marriage relationship.

Feminists and feminist marriage counselors tell women and men that women should only have sex when they feel like it and to disregard men’s needs. This message has become common in mainstream marriage counseling. In all sincerity, is this not the ultimate in self centeredness? Is not love defined as putting the needs of your partner above your own. It is widely reported in studies published in women’s magazines that about 60% of the married couples out there have sex about once a week. For most husbands that is tantamount to a starvation diet of sex once a week or less. Typically the woman gives her husband sex on Saturday night. The idea being, that she is now rested and relaxed enough to engage in sex, knowing that it is not a work night for her. Would any woman support giving kids a hug only once a week on Saturday night. Imagine when a child is feeling bad or sad and comes to mom for a hug and she says; “now you know that I only give hugs once a week on Saturday night.” Of course that notion is ridiculous and yet the feminists support the notion of doing it to their husbands. It is a logical and factual inconsistency and a continuing example of dominance demanded by the feminists. In what way does that resolve the issue of frequency in a marriage?

Most feminists are liars! That of course is an inflammatory statement. Before you dismiss that claim, allow yourself to read the ongoing evidence in this chapter with an open mind. At the end of the chapter, you must decide for yourself the veracity of that statement.

Feminists claim to desire equality. They don’t want equality, they want ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE.
If feminists truly wanted equality, that would include equality for men as well. Equality after all means that both men and women are equal and should receive equal treatment. Do men get equal treatment? Well the feminists claim that women should only have sex when they feel like it. If men and women were truly equal in a relationship, men would have the opportunity to have sex with their wives on one night, and the women would have the opportunity to not have sex on the next night. If men were equal, then the wives would be giving their husbands sex 3-4 times a week. If that were the case, then we would not be arguing about sex. After all, sex is one of THE BIG THREE that couples argue about. There is nothing equal in demanding the right for women to refuse sex to their husbands any time that they want to. After all, isn’t the ultimate definition of equality is sharing equally? Is not the definition of love putting your partner’s needs above your own? Would any woman support the notion that a husband should only be allowed to eat when his wife feels like allowing him to eat? This position violates the principle in I Corinthians 7 where it says that the wife is not to defraud the husband nor the husband defraud the wife, that their bodies are not their own.

If you reduce that demand to its logical consequences, it reduces men as nothing more than stud service on demand. The man does not get sexual satisfaction when he wants it. He has to wait until the wife is in the mood and willing whenever that might happen. Far too many men have complained not only in counseling but in letters to Ann Landers and Dear Abby, that they suffer from frequency of once or twice a month. Other men have complained about not getting sex literally in years. Explain how anyone can justify that as equality?

Remember that back in the 80’s women sportswriters sued the NFL because they were not allowed in the men’s locker rooms. They claimed that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The men’s right to privacy was completely abdicated and the women have been in the locker rooms ever since with naked men running around. The feminists argued that the right to privacy allowed them to kill their unborn children, but they did not see irony in denying a man to his right to privacy in the locker room. Now if there were equality, would it not stand to reason that male sportswriters should be allowed in women’s locker rooms? Do you see men sportswriters in women’s tennis player’s locker rooms? Of course not. Do you see men allowed in the locker rooms of women volleyball players? Of course not. Do we see men sportswriters in the locker rooms of women golfers? Of course not. I ask you, are we practicing equality? We are practicing reverse sexism and dominance on the part of women.

Women have successfully sued to join men’s clubs and golf clubs. Do we see women’s clubs opening up their clubs for male members? Of course not, we are seeing dominance and reverse sexism.

Women have successfully sued to have women allowed to attend all boy’s academies and colleges. Yet when an all girl’s school officials decided to open enrollment to men because of declining enrollments, we saw televised pictures of weeping women tearing out their hair and screaming and throwing themselves on the ground. Please…feminists don’t want equality, they want dominance. Their behavior and attitudes portray nothing but that.

In the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, women successfully sued the Fire Department claiming that the physical testing requirements were designed to keep women out of the firefighter’s department. What the physical requirements were designed to do is to weed out weak men. After all, for example, a firefighter is called upon to pick up a 200lb unconscious man in a fireman’s carry and run down a flight of stairs so as to save his life. The requirements were watered down to satisfy the successful lawsuit where two female firefighters can now drag that same 200lb man down the flight of stairs. Now you have 3 people whose lives are at stake. What about the injuries incurred by the unconscious man as he is being unceremoniously dragged down the steps? Now we have two women taking the place of one man. What happened to equality? Feminists scream about equal pay for equal work and yet the two firefighters taking the place of one firefighter will get the same pay for half of the work. Is this equality? No, it is dominance and reverse sexism. Suppose a woman comes home and finds out that her house is on fire and her husband is trapped inside unconscious from smoke inhalation on the second floor bedroom. What emotions would go through a wife’s mind as she saw two female firefighters going in to get him out? How would she feel watching them dragging her husband down the flight of steps, his body and head banging on the steps on the way down? Would she not rather have a big strong man throw her husband over his shoulder and run down that flight of steps? According to the feminists, that woman would be guilty of sexism if she had wished it was a man carrying her husband or adult son down the steps. Is it worth risking his life in order to have social engineering? These are the kinds of attitudes and ideas foisted upon the public that causes men to have tremendous resentment towards women. Truly the battle of the sexes has not improved but gotten more entrenched. More and more we have a liberal court practicing political correctness and giving to the feminist’s dominance rather than equality.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can saddle the man for child support for up to 22 years. If the man does not pay, he can be jailed, have his driver’s license revoked, his salary garnisheed, his tax refund’s seized, etc. If the woman does not give the man court ordered visitation the courts do nothing to the offending mother. Is this equality? No, it is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can decide on her own to kill the baby in her womb. The father has absolutely no say so or any rights to the child. Is this equality? It is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child and she is hit by a car, then she can have the driver charged with vehicular homicide if the baby is killed in the accident. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance, it is playing God. It is a baby if she decides it is for lawsuit purposes, but not a baby if she chooses to kill it through abortion.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can go right to term and have the baby delivered feet first in the breech position. The whole body is delivered, but the head is still in the birth canal. The physician stabs the baby in the skull and sucks its brains out and collapses the skull and delivers a dead baby. Is this murder, no, it is legal abortion. If anyone kills the baby after the head slips out, then it is murder, but as long as the head is still in the birth canal, then it is considered legal abortion. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance but legalized infanticide. What about the baby’s equal rights as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. The first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to life. This is dominance personified.

We are seeing gross reverse sexism called misandry in the TV commercials. Men are portrayed as hapless boobs where the heroic woman sweeps in to save the day.
Another example for example is a guy trying to do the family’s taxes using a software program; the wife comes in to ask him questions in a condescending tone. When he admits to having a problem she verbally belittles him in a very insulting and condescending manner. Women would not stand for that kind of attitude but it is okay to insult and belittle men. More importantly they encourage that behavior on the part of women. That is not equality but absolute dominance.

The definition of Misandry, from Wikipedia
Misandry (pronounced /mɪˈsændri/) is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. It is parallel to misogyny, the hatred of women. Misandry (μισανδρία) comes from Greek misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός; “man”). Misandry is also comparable with misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general.

Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist and Fox News commentator,[9] argues that some feminists “have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex” as “a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred.”[10] She argues that men as a class are considered ireformable, all men are considered rapists, and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same.r
McElroy states “a new ideology has come to the forefront… radical or gender, feminism”, one that has “joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of ‘dead white males.'”[11]

Conservative pundit Charlotte Hays argues “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.”[12]
[edit] Analogies to other forms of bigotry
Masculist writer and frequent speaker at the Cato Institute[13] Warren Farrell compares dehumanizing stereotyping of men to dehumanization of the Vietnamese people as “gooks.”[14]
In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

—Warren Farrell, Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say
Religious Studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young make similar comparisons in their three-book series Beyond the Fall of Man,[15] which treats misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society. Nathanson and Young credit “ideological feminism” for imposing misandry on culture.[16]

Their book Spreading Misandry (2001) analyzes “pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s” from movies to greeting cards for what they consider contains pervasive messages of hatred toward men. Legalizing Misandry (2005) the second in the series, gives similar attention to laws in North America.

Feminism is clearly not supported in mainstream society. One need only look at Ms. Magazine for proof. They were founded in 1972 and after all of these years, their circulation nationwide is a mere 150,000 according to their own statement. There is so little editorial content of any consequence that they only publish quarterly. For years, the only way that the magazine has survived is on subscriptions alone. They can’t get any advertisers to buy adds in the magazine. Ad sales indicate the viability of any magazine. In spite of this mere pittance of a magazine, they claim a FEMINIST MAJORITY. It is clearly not so, in fact but a false PR slogan. Every election, feminists are out claiming Funds for a Feminist Majority.

You can find Ms. Magazine in a tool for writers entitled: WRITER’S MARKET. The next magazine following the Ms. Listing entitled: REDBOOK shows a circulation of 2,500,000. Can you see the difference in the circulation of a monthly magazine compared to the quarterly magazine of MS. Interestingly enough, Redbook has extensive articles every month about women’s sex lives. You can read it for yourself, they don’t follow Ms’. notions about sex.

Feminists claim equality and diversity. What they practice is absolute dominance. At feminist meetings, pro-life women are “shouted down” and are not allowed to speak. How is that diversity or equality? It is not, it is absolute dominance. There are multiple examples of feminists either attacking their own or ignoring their own if the women are conservatives. Where were the feminists when the pundits in the press were viciously attacking Sara Palin and more importantly her daughters?

Here is another example of how feminists don’t represent women in general and will attack their own. Back in the mid 1970’s there was a woman by the name of Marabelle Morgan. She started a seminar program for married women based upon her best selling book entitled: The Total Woman. She suggested to women to better take care of their husband’s sexual needs. One of the suggestions that she made was to: Greet your husband at the door in nothing more than saran wrap.

This was a suggestion for women to have fun in their sex lives and practice a little spontaneity. She further recommended that women initiate sex once in a while. The Saran Wrap was designed to illustrate those suggestions. The feminists howled making noise about women being treated as sexual objects. The liberal media picked up this diatribe and gave massive amounts of coverage to it. It caused a national ministry that had proved to save and/or improve tens of thousands of marriages to be shut down. She got death threats over her work. At that time the divorce rate was about 25%. Today it is widely reported that the divorce rate is around 50%. In what ways has feminism shown to improve marriages? The evidence would speak to the contrary.
This so empowered the liberal cabal that there was even a movie produced to shower down condescension and disapproval over Mrs. Morgan’s message. That movie was called the Stepford Wives. If you saw the movie, the leading message was to women that they should be rebellious and feel no compunction to satisfy their husband’s sexual desires.


Men From A Woman’s Point of View, Another Outstanding Guest Post

June 14, 2010

I have searched the blogs and have come up with another outstanding post. It gives hope to men everywhere and puts feminsts into their place.

Men–From A Woman’s Point of View9

http://happyeggroll.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/men-from-a-womans-point-of-view/
Her link if you want to read more

Now, there are some women out there that have the “all men are pigs” attitude, but really, not all men are. Personally, I happen to think men are fantastic beings and they fascinate me. Why, you ask? Well let me tell you why I think that.

Men are great conversationalists
Yes, it’s true. Men do talk and they love to talk about what they like. If you take the time to ask them questions, and find out what they like….engage! I have found that when you ask a man questions about himself, and genuinely look interested, he will talk…happily. If you take the time to listen, you’ll learn something new and the more he will want to talk to you.

Men are smart
They are smart about what they know and take interest in. Does your man like football? Books? Photography? Show some interest and ask about his hobbies. You don’t have to make his hobbies your hobbies, but take some initiative to learn more about what he knows. I always say it’s good to know some “boy” things.

Not all men are assholes
This might be a shock to some women out there, but some men (a lot of men) are very sweet, giving, thoughtful and sensitive. Shocker? Not to me. Hey, we’ve all had our fair share of jackhole men, but those asses don’t define the whole of mankind.

Men have a different point of view of things
I might catch some flack for this statement, but sometimes, ladies, we are wrong. Seeing things from a different point of view (a man’s point of view) can sometimes add clarity to things.

Men have parts
If you haven’t already noticed, men have different parts as women….hehe, that’s a fascinating thing. (and that’s all I’m going to say about that–for now)

So, there are other things that I find awesome about men, but those are just the immediate things I can think of.

All men are not jerks.

Men are fabulous.


Women Have Legitimate Complaints About Men, Men Do it Better

May 1, 2010

             Women Have Legitimate Complaints About Men

    Any one who knows me, knows that I am an outspoken critic of women and their reverse sexism against men.  They tend to be self centered about their needs and brook no critique by their men.  They also are lousy as a rule at taking care of men’s sexual needs.  That being said, women have legitimate complaints about us guys.  We need to man up and do it better.

     The Bible says that we are treat our women as “the weaker vessel”.  They are not only weaker emotionally, they are weaker physically.  We must not use that to our advantage, but be protective of her.  We should never ever use our superior strength against the woman, God gave us that strength to protect women not beat on them, physically or emotionially.

     A lot of women have been suffering not necessarily in silence, but they have a very legitimate point.  Too many of them are required to work a 40 hour week to survive financially because we can’t make enough to support a family by ourselves.  That being said, why in the world do you get the notion that housework is a woman’s job and that she should come home and take care of all of the housework while you sit on the couch with the remote?  House work should be divided equally between husband and wife and when the kids get old enough they also need to pitch in.  I can understand a woman not being in the mood for sex because she is exhausted while you sit on your butt.

     Another thing is that you guys get too self centered about sex and getting off and leaving her unsatisfied.  You are also not very romantic and take her for granted after a while.  It is the equivalent of eating macaroni and cheese 3 times a day 7 days a week.  You would want to eat the very least that you had to  stay alive.  Women need romance for a chance to relax and reconnect with us emotionally and sexually.  You guys are not giving your women enough foreplay time and not giving enough imagination to mixing things up a bit. How about taking her against the kitchen sink or on the dining room table or in the back seat of the car parking.     You don’t do date nights anymore, you don’t slow dance with her.  Many of you just want to get it done and roll over and go to sleep.

When you do this, you kill your relationship a little bit at a time, because she begins to feel like nothing more than a piece of meat.  Guys, take a long look at how you have been treating your wives and man up to get more sex and romance.  You have changes to make before it is too late.

If you need help with your relationship or your sex life, I can help.  All you have to do is drop me a line at marriagecoach1@yahoo.com and I will call you and set up a half hour free consultation and I also feature an unheard of money back guarantee.

Blessings on you and yours

John Wilder


Feminists Are Ruining Your Sex Life and Marriages, They Want Absolute Domination

February 11, 2010


     
     
     

It is appalling what feminists and feminist counselors tell couples about sex. They say that women should only have sex when they feel like it and disregard their husband’s feelings. The feminists would say that a woman should not allow herself to be a “sexual slave” to her husband. There are even some feminists claiming that any married sex amounts to rape. This is not conducive to resolving sexual conflicts in a marriage relationship.

Feminists and feminist marriage counselors tell women and men that women should only have sex when they feel like it and to disregard men’s needs. This message has become common in mainstream marriage counseling. In all sincerity, is this not the ultimate in self centeredness? Is not love defined as putting the needs of your partner above your own. It is widely reported in studies published in women’s magazines that about 60% of the married couples out there have sex about once a week. For most husbands that is tantamount to a starvation diet of sex once a week or less.

Typically the woman gives her husband sex on Saturday night. The idea being, that she is now rested and relaxed enough to engage in sex, knowing that it is not a work night for her. Would any woman support giving kids a hug only once a week on Saturday night. Imagine when a child is feeling bad or sad and comes to mom for a hug and she says; “now you know that I only give hugs once a week on Saturday night.” Of course that notion is ridiculous and yet the feminists support the notion of doing it to their husbands. It is a logical and factual inconsistency and a continuing example of dominance demanded by the feminists. In what way does that resolve the issue of frequency in a marriage?

Most feminists are liars! That of course is an inflammatory statement. Before you dismiss that claim, allow yourself to read the ongoing evidence in this chapter with an open mind. At the end of the chapter, you must decide for yourself the veracity of that statement.

Feminists claim to desire equality. They don’t want equality, they want ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE. If feminists truly wanted equality, that would include equality for men as well. Equality after all means that both men and women are equal and should receive equal treatment. Do men get equal treatment? Well the feminists claim that women should only have sex when they feel like it. If men and women were truly equal in a relationship, men would have the opportunity to have sex with their wives on one night, and the women would have the opportunity to not have sex on the next night. If men were equal, then the wives would be giving their husbands sex 3-4 times a week. If that were the case, then we would not be arguing about sex. After all, sex is one of THE BIG THREE that couples argue about. There is nothing equal in demanding the right for women to refuse sex to their husbands any time that they want to. After all, isn’t the ultimate definition of equality is sharing equally? Is not the definition of love putting your partner’s needs above your own? Would any woman support the notion that a husband should only be allowed to eat when his wife feels like allowing him to eat?

If you reduce that demand to its logical consequences, it reduces men as nothing more than stud service on demand. The man does not get sexual satisfaction when he wants it. He has to wait until the wife is in the mood and willing whenever that might happen. Far too many men have complained not only in counseling but in letters to Ann Landers and Dear Abby, that they suffer from frequency of once or twice a month. Other men have complained about not getting sex literally in years. Explain how anyone can justify that as equality?

Remember that back in the 80’s women sportswriters sued the NFL because they were not allowed in the men’s locker rooms. They claimed that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The men’s right to privacy was completely abdicated and the women have been in the locker rooms ever since with naked men running around. The feminists argued that the right to privacy allowed them to kill their unborn children, but they did not see irony in denying a man to his right to privacy in the locker room. Now if there were equality, would it not stand to reason that male sportswriters should be allowed in women’s locker rooms? Do you see men sportswriters in women’s tennis player’s locker rooms? Of course not. Do you see men allowed in the locker rooms of women volleyball players? Of course not. Do we see men sportswriters in the locker rooms of women golfers? Of course not. I ask you, are we practicing equality? We are practicing reverse sexism and dominance on the part of women.

Women have successfully sued to join men’s clubs and golf clubs. Do we see women’s clubs opening up their clubs for male members? Of course not, we are seeing dominance and reverse sexism.

Women have successfully sued to have women allowed to attend all boy’s academies and colleges. Yet when an all girl’s school officials decided to open enrollment to men because of declining enrollments, we saw televised pictures of weeping women tearing out their hair and screaming and throwing themselves on the ground. Pleasefeminists don’t want equality, they want dominance. Their behavior and attitudes portray nothing but that.

In the city of Saint Paul , Minnesota , women successfully sued the Fire Department claiming that the physical testing requirements were designed to keep women out of the firefighter’s department. What the physical requirements were designed to do is to weed out weak men. After all, for example, a firefighter is called upon to pick up a 200lb unconscious man in a fireman’s carry and run down a flight of stairs so as to save his life. The requirements were watered down to satisfy the successful lawsuit where two female firefighters can now drag that same 200lb man down the flight of stairs. Now you have 3 people whose lives are at stake. What about the injuries incurred by the unconscious man as he is being unceremoniously dragged down the steps? Now we have two women taking the place of one man. What happened to equality? Feminists scream about equal pay for equal work and yet the two firefighters taking the place of one firefighter will get the same pay for half of the work. Is this equality? No, it is dominance and reverse sexism. Suppose a woman comes home and finds out that her house is on fire and her husband is trapped inside unconscious from smoke inhalation on the second floor bedroom. What emotions would go through a wife’s mind as she saw two female firefighters going in to get him out? How would she feel watching them dragging her husband down the flight of steps, his body and head banging on the steps on the way down? Would she not rather have a big strong man throw her husband over his shoulder and run down that flight of steps? According to the feminists, that woman would be guilty of sexism if she had wished it was a man carrying her husband or adult son down the steps. Is it worth risking his life in order to have social engineering? These are the kinds of attitudes and ideas foisted upon the public that causes men to have tremendous resentment towards women. Truly the battle of the sexes has not improved but gotten more entrenched. More and more we have a liberal court practicing political correctness and giving to the feminist’s dominance rather than equality.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can saddle the man for child support for up to 22 years. If the man does not pay, he can be jailed, have his driver’s license revoked, his salary garnisheed, his tax refund’s seized, etc. If the woman does not give the man court ordered visitation the courts do nothing to the offending mother. Is this equality? No, it is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can decide on her own to kill the baby in her womb. The father has absolutely no say so or any rights to the child. Is this equality? It is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child and she is hit by a car, then she can have the driver charged with vehicular homicide if the baby is killed in the accident. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance, it is playing God. It is a baby if she decides it is for lawsuit purposes, but not a baby if she chooses to kill it through abortion.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can go right to term and have the baby delivered feet first in the breech position. The whole body is delivered, but the head is still in the birth canal. The physician stabs the baby in the skull and sucks its brains out and collapses the skull and delivers a dead baby. Is this murder, no, it is legal abortion. If anyone kills the baby after the head slips out, then it is murder, but as long as the head is still in the birth canal, then it is considered legal abortion. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance but legalized infanticide. What about the baby’s equal rights as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. The first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to life. This is dominance personified.

We are seeing gross reverse sexism called misandry in the TV commercials. Men are portrayed as hapless boobs where the heroic woman sweeps in to save the day.

Another example for example is a guy trying to do the family’s taxes using a software program; the wife comes in to ask him questions in a condescending tone. When he admits to having a problem she verbally belittles him in a very insulting and condescending manner. Women would not stand for that kind of attitude but it is okay to insult and belittle men. More importantly they encourage that behavior on the part of women. That is not equality but absolute dominance.

The definition of Misandry, from Wikipedia Misandry (pronounced /msndri/ ) is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. It is parallel to misogyny , the hatred of women. Misandry () comes from Greek misos ( , “hatred”) and anr , andros ( , ; “man”). Misandry is also comparable with misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general.

Wendy McElroy , an individualist feminist and Fox News commentator,  argues that some feminists “have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex” as “a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred.”  She argues that men as a class are considered ireformable, all men are considered rapists , and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same.r McElroy states “a new ideology has come to the forefront… radical or gender, feminism”, one that has “joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of ‘ dead white males .’ Conservative pundit Charlotte Hays argues “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.”  Analogies to other forms of bigotry Masculist writer and frequent speaker at the Cato Institute Warren Farrell compares dehumanizing stereotyping of men to dehumanization of the Vietnamese people as ” gooks .”  In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism , and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

– Warren Farrell, Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say Religious Studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young make similar comparisons in their three-book series Beyond the Fall of Man, which treats misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society. Nathanson and Young credit “ideological feminism” for imposing misandry on culture. Their book Spreading Misandry (2001) analyzes ” pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s” from movies to greeting cards for what they consider contains pervasive messages of hatred toward men. Legalizing Misandry (2005) the second in the series, gives similar attention to laws in North America .

Feminism is clearly not supported in mainstream society. One need only look at Ms. Magazine for proof. They were founded in 1972 and after all of these years, their circulation nationwide is a mere 150,000 according to their own statement. There is so little editorial content of any consequence that they only publish quarterly. For years, the only way that the magazine has survived is on subscriptions alone. They can’t get any advertisers to buy adds in the magazine. Ad sales indicate the viability of any magazine. In spite of this mere pittance of a magazine, they claim a FEMINIST MAJORITY. It is clearly not so, in fact but a false PR slogan. Every election, feminists are out claiming Funds for a Feminist Majority.

You can find Ms. Magazine in a tool for writers entitled: WRITER’S MARKET. The next magazine following the Ms. Listing entitled: REDBOOK shows a circulation of 2,500,000. Can you see the difference in the circulation of a monthly magazine compared to the quarterly magazine of MS. Interestingly enough, Redbook has extensive articles every month about women’s sex lives. You can read it for yourself, they don’t follow Ms’. notions about sex.

Feminists claim equality and diversity. What they practice is absolute dominance. At feminist meetings, pro-life women are “shouted down” and are not allowed to speak. How is that diversity or equality? It is not, it is absolute dominance. There are multiple examples of feminists either attacking their own or ignoring their own if the women are conservatives. Where were the feminists when the pundits in the press were viciously attacking Sara Palin and more importantly her daughters?

Here is another example of how feminists don’t represent women in general and will attack their own. Back in the mid 1970’s there was a woman by the name of Marabelle Morgan. She started a seminar program for married women based upon her best selling book entitled: The Total Woman. She suggested to women to better take care of their husband’s sexual needs. One of the suggestions that she made was to: Greet your husband at the door in nothing more than saran wrap.

This was a suggestion for women to have fun in their sex lives and practice a little spontaneity. She further recommended that women initiate sex once in a while. The Saran Wrap was designed to illustrate those suggestions. The feminists howled making noise about women being treated as sexual objects. The liberal media picked up this diatribe and gave massive amounts of coverage to it. It caused a national ministry that had proved to save and/or improve tens of thousands of marriages to be shut down. She got death threats over her work. At that time the divorce rate was about 25%. Today it is widely reported that the divorce rate is around 50%. In what ways has feminism shown to improve marriages? The evidence would speak to the contrary.

This so empowered the liberal cabal that there was even a movie produced to shower down condescension and disapproval over Mrs. Morgan’s message. That movie was called the Stepford Wives. If you saw the movie, the leading message was to women that they should be rebellious and feel no compunction to satisfy their husband’s sexual desires.

Clearly women look for leadership in how to conduct their lives. There is little evidence to show that feminists have improved marriages or the marriage relationship. In the chapter entitled Sex and The Bible, you will find a different role model regarding marriage and sex. Compare and contrast that message with that of the feminists to see which makes more sense.


%d bloggers like this: