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.


Sexual Advice For Single Women

July 27, 2011

It is no wonder that you women are more confused than ever. You have been bombarded by multiple conflicting messages about sex and relationships. In a case of “Art Imitating Life” the TV show entitled: Sex in the City demonstrated women’s sense of conflictedness about sex and relationships. They proved to be ultimately clueless and tended to reinforce their own stereotypes. Carrie, the supposed expert on sex based upon her column was just as clueless about men and relationships as the rest of her girlfriends. This illustrates a problem in our society. We do not have any male advice columnists. If you are having trouble with a man, does it not make sense that you would go to a man for advice and counsel? The problem is, is that there are no nationally published male advice columnists.

I have confronted women’s magazine editors over the issue that their advice to women is always written by women. Invariably, these advice writers rarely confront women to tell them that they are doing anything wrong or damaging to their relationship with their man. What you get effectively from these writers is that they pat women on the bottom and reassure them that they are fine and it is the man’s fault. I will address this further in another chapter on how the feminists and the media are ruining your sex life. I will also explain the word MISANDRY in that chapter. It is a word and a concept that you really need to become familiar with and to be proactive in combating.

I differ from women advice columnists in that I am equal opportunity proponent. I take on men when they need to be confronted, and I take on women as well. I explain how each hurts their relationship, wittingly or unwittingly. If you really want to learn things and make things better in your relationship and are willing to hear critique, then I am your guy. If you just want me to be patronizing and pat you on the fanny and tell you that you are wonderful, don’t read my column.

Not only will I take on the feminists and the media, I will take on the church as well. I can do this because I was formerly a Baptist minister.
The church ignores the sexual issues that are contained in the Bible. There are numerous positive messages in the Bible about sex. There is even a school for sex mandated in the New Testament for women in how to love their husbands that you never hear preached or taught on.
According to the Bible, sex is a gift from God. All you ever hear in church are the “thou shall nots” about sex, you never hear any positive messages on sex or the positive commands about sex in the Bible.

You can’t trust the media either. All they ever want to do is print the sensational and the salacious. Truth is rarely found in the pages of the media. For example, according to the media, they often quote: “The world’s oldest profession” is prostitution. This is not even close to being true. If the media had any integrity, and believe me they don’t, they would tell you about all of the other professions that came before prostitution. You can find these professions listed in the Bible in succession: Shepherd, farmer, contractor, rancher, musician, blacksmith, hunter, boat-builder, winemaker, well digger and then prostitution. None of that of course is sensational and would not sell newspapers, so they sacrifice truth for sensationalism, expediency and profits. Trust nothing that you read in print without checking it out with numerous other sources.

Now let me give you some very important advice about sex and men, especially if you are single. Sex in dating has become so devalued that it is looked on as little more than a good night kiss. It is not a question of if, but only when you have sex with a guy you are dating.
I submit to you that you need to become much more selective about engaging in sex. Women have adapted the practice of having sex with the guy and hoping for the best. You are invariably disappointed. You are looking for that “knight in shining armor” to sweep you off of your feet. You want the “happily ever after” of love marriage and children. I submit to you that you need to get to know early on what the man is all about and what his goals are in terms of love and marriage. Often guys are just looking to have fun with a woman and have casual sex. In other words, many of them are just looking to get laid. You need to get rid of those guys before you ever let them into your bed and into your pants. You really don’t want to just be used as someone’s piece of ass.

Too many of you are so taken with romance that you don’t want to ask any hard questions up front, to your own detriment. The problem is, that for every guy that you sleep with that does not develop into a relationship, you become a little harder, more jaded and cynical and less trusting. You must guard your heart and your body. We have epidemic venereal diseases today, some of which are lifelong, or even fatal. Before you let that guy into your pants, you need to see a very recent negative Aids test and testing for all other venereal diseases like Herpes. I know that sounds very cold and unromantic, but I am trying to be pragmatic here and protect you. You need to protect yourselves. Any guy worth having will not have a problem with doing this for you. If he is unwilling, run the other direction.

The other thing is that you want to know that he has a good job that he can provide for your family. You also want to know if he is seriously marriage and family minded. What kind of father does he aspire to be? These are questions that you need to have answered before you ever engage in sex with him. If he passes on all of these questions and you are still considering sleeping with him and he still wants to be with you, he needs to pass one final test before you have sex with him. You need to ask him to read the part of this book that teaches men how to make love with you. Sadly, there is no “SCHOOL FOR SEX FOR MEN” out there to teach them how to make love with you and satisfy you. You already know from experience that what I am saying is true. Most men are just clueless about making love with a woman. Even if he is reasonably okay in bed, reading my instructions will make him fantastic in bed. Don’t you want to have a great sex life? So bottom line is to have him read my instructions and reassure you that he is willing to follow those directions in bed. If he does this, then have sex with him.

This will take 3 or 4 dates to find this information out. You could take matters into your own hands and go online to dating sites and put all of this in your profile. You don’t need to date a lot of men, you need to date a few quality men that are already pre-screened by your clear description of what you are looking for in a man that is contained in your profile. Yes, I know that it will scare a lot of men off. That is my idea. You don’t need the men that it will scare off, you need the men who read it and it makes sense to them. We have a model of what a good man should look like in the Bible as listed in the following verses:

Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it;…so men out men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church;…For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh…Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; Ephesians 5: 25,28,29,31,33

Likewise you husbands, dwell with them according to the knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life that your prayers might not be hindered. I Peter 3:7

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking who he may destroy. I Peter 5:8

I would even encourage you to put these scriptures in your profile in describing the kind of man that you are looking for. You are then again by using these scriptures in your profile pre-screening guys that are not seriously marriage minded.

I know that you still dream of the “happily ever after”. According to David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead who are co-directors of the Marriage Project at Rutgers University, they have found the following factors yield the best chance at long-lasting satisfying marriage: having similar goals and interests, know each other well but don’t live together before they get married, come from intact families, marry after age 25, and are not expecting a child, similar in age, race, religion, political beliefs, education, intelligence and values. The payoff of a good marriage is personal happiness, more and better sex than singles, economic success, health and long life, and very positive benefits for the children.
This is the kind of advice that I have given to single women in my family. If you follow it, you have a much higher chance of having “happily ever after”.


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.


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.


Misandry In Our Society

January 26, 2010

Man’s number one need is respect.  Sadly we live in a society that is saturated with MISANDRY.  Misandry is the opposite of misogyny.  In other words it is reverse sexism by women against men.  We see it in the family courts where men are painted as bad and women are portrayed as good.

We see it in commercials.  I defy you to show me a commercial where a man is portrayed positively.

We see it in advice columnists.  There are no nationally syndicated advice columnists in print today anywhere in the country. Why is it only women advice columnists?

We see it in the media.  The media always want to print scandal like Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.  They never print the fact that she probably sexually starved him for years.  Studies show that 60% of women out there have their husbands on a starvation diet of sex once a week or less.  You never hear that in the media.  It is women good and men bad.

Maureen Dowd ( the infamous NY Times columnist) actually wrote a column stating that the only reason that a woman needed a man is to be a sperm donor.

We see it in special treatment for women that men don’t get.  There was the infamous case where a woman sports columnist was kept out of a locker room of NFL players.  She sued the NFL for sexism and got into the locker room where she got an eyeful of naked men.  You of course did not see the equal treatment of men who got to go into women’s locker rooms.

You need to pay attention to the misandry in our society and fight it.  If one class of people can be discriminated against, others will follow.


Parental Alienation Syndrome

January 22, 2010

 

    For all of you single dads out there, this is a topic that you had better be aware of.  It could get the better of you before you know what hit you.

    Parental Alienation Syndrome is basically one partner, usually the custodial mother systematically turning the children against their father.  It is insidious.  It shows up in children suddenly not wanting to come over for their court ordered visitation.  It might manifest itself in the children saying that they hate their dad for no good reason or made up reasons.  It can show up as a daughter falsely claiming that her dad sexually abused her.  The time to act is now.

     The first thing that you want to do is contact the family court that ordered the visitation.  Find out if they have what is called a visitation coordinator or expeditor.  If they do, contact that person immediately and enlist their help.  If not, you need to get your exe back into court.  You need to line up an attorney who has had experience and training in dealing with Parental Alienation Syndrome.  You will also want  to find a counselor in your area who has had experience and training in PAS as well.  The courts typically don’t want to deal with this and they will tend to want to refer the kids to a counselor.  You need to be prepared to give them a suggestion with a couple of names of counselors that you have already interviewed.  The court could also appoint a guardian at litem.  You want to ask that they court appoint someone who has had training in dealing with PAS.  Surprisingly, courts are very antiquated and are not up on this Syndrome.

     If you don’t get ahead of the curve you could lose your children’s relationship until they are grown.  There are a number of good books published on the subject.  You will want to buy and read the book published by the American Psychological Assn called DIVORCE WARS.  I would suggest that you read at least one other book which you can find on Amazon.  Just punch into their search engine PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME.

     Now I must tell you to take care of yourself.  It is easy to get hurt from the hateful things that the kids say.  DON’T!

You have to understand that they are doing their mother’s bidding.  There is another similar syndrome called the Stockholm Syndrome.  It is similar in that once someone is held hostage over time they can identify with  their captors.

The most famous case of this was Patty Hearst.  You need to practice the upmost patience here and not get angry with your children.  It is the mother’s fault.  She has found an effective way to exact revenge on you for the marriage break up. If you would like to talk to me about it, you could drop me a line at marriagecoach1@yahoo.com and I will give you a half hour free consultation.


%d bloggers like this: