"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS BOOK IS CURRENTLY UNDER RENOVATION
I am in the process of writing a 2nd edition to this book,
and it will take some time to complete.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents: Introduction Chapter #01 - Feminism is a Religion Chapter #02 - The Illusion of Male Privilege Chapter #03 - How Women Destroy Men in Family Court Chapter #04 - How Women Domestically Abuse Men Chapter #05 - The Illusion of Emotional Abuse Chapter #06 - The Illusion of Rape Culture Chapter #07 - The Illusion of a Wage Gap Chapter #08 - Women Should Not Vote Chapter #09 - The Biblical Role of Men Chapter #10 - The Dark Side of Feminism Chapter #11 - My Thoughts and Experiences

 
"Kill the patriarchy kill all men #killallmen"
-hizunaencounter, Twitter.com, July 19, 2014, retrieved Feb 29, 2024, [https://twitter.com/hizunaencounter/status/490703050844438528]

"This Mother's Day, show your mom you really care by giving her the gift that keeps on giving. #KillAllMen- and your sons to [sic]"
-baylamarika, Twitter.com, July 27, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/baylamarika/status/493529427133743105]

"The #twitterpurge is just making it one step closer to the real purge. And I can't wait till the real purge ;) #killallmen"
-wrestlingdogz, Twitter.com, July 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [https://twitter.com/wrestlingdogz/status/490657339377057792]

"My dad genuinely just tried to tell me there is no glass ceiling anymore #killallmen"
-PoppyAnneMarie, Twitter.com, July 14, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/PoppyAnneMarie/status/488754408441020416?lang=en]

"#KILLALLMEN ALL MEN ARE PIGS THEY ARE ALL RAPISTS AND PIGS KILL ALL MEN KILL ALL MEN KILL ALL MEN"
-RavenAdmiral, Twitter.com, Oct 17, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [https://twitter.com/RavenAdmiral/status/788223762617499648]

These were but a few of the many Twitter/X posts that were made in the 2010s under the hashtag "killallmen," which was a feminist expression about how they literally wanted all (or most) men to die. This is comical when we consider that electricity, computers, smart phones, and the internet were all created by men, and are maintained by the hard work of men, which means that if feminists were to "kill all men," they would quickly lose the ability to broadcast their insane message.

castrate (n): to remove the testes of; emasculate; to deprive of strength, power, or efficiency
(See 'feminism', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The title of this book, "Feminism: Castrating America" is focused on the United States of America because I am a natural-born American, however, the principles I will discuss in this book affect everyone in all nations, despite their cultural differences, and I will also refer to statistics that come from various countries outside of America to help prove some of my points. The other main reason I will focus on America is because our nation has become a breeding ground for feminist ideology, and since America was the primary economic powerhouse in the 20th century, feminism not only infected our homes, schools, and church buildings, but it has also affected many other countries around the world.

There are other hidden forces that contributed to the rise of feminism for the purpose of destroying our nation, but we will cover those details later. To begin, let's define the word 'feminism' from a standard online dictionary:

feminism (n): the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men
(See 'feminism', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

This definition alleges that feminism is about establishing rights for women, which sounds kind and fluffy on the surface. The following quote was taken feminist.com's "About" page, written by director Marrianne Schnall:
"Feminist.com was founded in 1995, as a few women and I gathered around the table in my New York City apartment... to offer people around the world access to information about human rights, women's issues, health, anti-violence resources, grassroots activism, women's business, and pretty much anything that could possibly support a world where men and women are allied, empowered and equal."
-Marrianne Schnall, "Welcome to Feminist.com," feminist.com, retrieved Feb 29, 2024, [https://feminist.com/about/]

That certainly sounds good without much in-depth thought because it makes it seem like women are an oppressed class, and that feminists are all about love, justice, health, and anti-violence, but what readers may not know is that these definitions are lies, and they are designed to fool young men and women into thinking that feminism is about "equality," and furthermore, fooling them into thinking that equality is even possible when contrasting men and women. In this book, I will demonstrate that the origin of feminism comes from witchcraft (i.e. a religion that worships women), that it is impossible for women to be equal with men, that women cannot have rights that are not granted to them by men (and can be taken from them at any time), and that the reality of feminism is misandry (i.e. a hatred of men), by which it teaches women to despise boys and men, teaches boys and men to worship women, teaches women to dominate and rule over men, and in the end, it teaches women to destroy men.

For example, the following quote is from Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, a strictly feminist publication, and it was written almost 50 years after the publication of my book, showing us that this is nothing new: "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
-Robin Morgan, Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist, Vintage Books, 1977, p. 178, ISBN: 9780394726120

Does that sound like the position of a woman who is anti-violence and pro-human rights? Does this sound like someone who wants "equality," or does this sound like someone who hates men at her core, and wants to vindicate her self-perceived "righteousness" because she has a vagina?

If Morgan's words were not truly the philosophy of the feminist movement, then why was this woman made an editor of one of the most famous feminist publications in the world? Why was she not fired for these statements because she did not represent "feminist values?" It is not hard to figure out that she was hired because she believed the exact message her corporate overlords wanted her to spread throughout society.

Fifty years later, Morgan still has no remorse for these statements, nor has she changed her position. Instead, she has doubled-down on her malice, and still participates in interviews to push feminist and atheist propaganda.
(See Robin Morgan, "Robin Morgan: Atheist & Feminist Icon," Freedom From Religion Foundation, May 6, 2021, retrieved Feb 28, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naXdDDDxWf0])

If feminism is allegedly advocating for "human rights," then why are women only hating men? If feminism wants "equality" (as the definitions of feminism indicated), then why do they not also hate women equally? This is because feminism has nothing to do with rights and equality, and everything to do with destroying men for the purpose of destroying the nuclear family.

nuclear family (n): a family group that consists only of parents and children
(See 'nuclear family', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The definition of 'nuclear family' has been changed over the years from its original meaning, which was a married father and mother, and the children born from that union. This was changed to "parents" more recently (as opposed to the more specific definition of father and mother) to include the vile abomination of queers (i.e. homosexuals/sodomites) pretending they are married, transgender queers pretending to be the opposite sex, and our corrupt government allowing queers to adopt children, which is a horrible idea for many reasons I would have to cover in another book, but for the purpose of this book, the 'nuclear family' is the family of a household, namely, a married biological male father, a married biological female mother, and the children birthed from that marriage.

Feminist Linda Gordon, author and professor of history at New York University, said:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and the people must find better ways of living together... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process."
-Linda Gordon, "Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation (Now stored at Smith College, SSC-MS-00319), Fall issue of 1969

As you can see, Gordon said the quiet part out loud, namely, that feminists want to break-up families. They want women to have the power to kick fathers out of the home, to steal wealth and children from fathers, and to kill their own babies, all of which men have allowed women to do without lawful consequences for the past few decades.

Feminist author and college professor Mary Daly was interviewed by What is Enlightenment? Magazine:
"WIE: Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article, 'The Future—If There Is One—Is Female' writes: 'At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.' What do you think about this statement?"

"DALY: If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore." -Mary Daly, interview in What is Enlightenment?, Issue #16, Fall/Winter 1999, p. 125-126, retrieved Mar 1, 2024, [https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wieoldissues/wie_en_weboptimized/EN_issue_16.pdf]

Sally Gearhart was a lesbian eugenicist (i.e. she wanted to euthanize and castrate those she considered to be less intelligent than herself) who was hired to teach at San Francisco State University, and she wanted the world idolize women. She said that all authority should be "returned to women," even though there is no historical evidence that all authority belonged to women at any time, which sounds a lot like she was trying to replace real history with a fake narrative to justify her ideology, and if you think that sounds like pure speculation on my part, please note that the cover of the magazine which published this interview poses the question: "Could Christ have been a woman?"

(See What is Enlightenment?, Issue #16, Fall/Winter 1999, p. 125-126, retrieved Mar 1, 2024, [https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wieoldissues/wie_en_weboptimized/EN_issue_16.pdf])

To accomplish her goal of female domination, she said that the population of men must be reduced to only 10%, or rather, 'decimated' because that is the literal meaning of the word. Although her ideology is insane, she knew that such a worldview could only be actualized by killing off 80% of all men (which is also an indirect admission that the world needs men, bringing them down to 10% of the population instead of zero), but in later chapters, I will argue that even if this world had a population of only 10% men and 90% women, men would still be in charge, and women would still have to convince men to give them rights.

Daly then agrees with Gearhart, claiming that the destruction of males is part of the "evolutionary process," which is another religious ideology that has nothing to do with real science. Of course, within the atheist/evolutionary worldview, one could not argue with her because impossibly drastic biological change is the foundation of their religion, which means that one could believe in the absurdity of a female dominated world. However, that being said, we have a record throughout the past 6,000 years of mankind's history in which men have been the protectors of women, children, and society; men have built it, and maintained it through blood, sweat, and tears, shielding women from having to suffer what men have to suffer to keep everyone safe from harm, but in a rage of willful blindness, arrogant feminists think they can survive without the protection of men, which is laughably absurd.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

When questioned about relationships between men and women on the David Letterman show, feminist actress Sharon Stone gave her honest opinion: "The more famous and powerful I get, the more power I have to hurt men." -Sharon Stone, quoted by Bret Carroll, American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia, SAGE Publications, 2003, p. 400, ISBN: 9781452265711

The irony of this statement is that, about 10 years later (when she was in her 50s), Stone started testifying about how lonely she was, which should come as no surprise since she has publically expressed her desire to dominate and harm men. As we will learn more about later, men do not care about how successful a woman is, nor how much money she makes, and so the things that women think (due to feminist propaganda) that men should value from women are actually valueless in the eyes of men, and many women have to learned this the hard way later in their lives, which results in wealthy, powerful actresses like Sharon Stone learning that as much as she might have been sexually desired on screen, no man wanted her for a relationship.

She complained that men would not approach her, and typically distanced themselves from her, due to the promiscuous sexual icon she created for herself as an actress, but I would say to her: "If you play the harlot, you'll die as a harlot." Stone acted like she was an innocent victim of her fame, but she is a feminist, and as I pointed earler, feminists are privileged, whining women who run from the consequences of their bad choices.
(See Kate Thomas, "'I wish more guys would throw themselves at me!' Sharon Stone, 57, says men never approach her because they're afraid of her sex symbol status," Daily Mail, June 1, 2015, retrieved Mar 5, 2024, [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3105892/Sharon-Stone-57-says-men-never-approach-afraid.html])

Outside of criminals who harm others to steal, why does one person seek to harm another person? What is the driving desire to inflict pain and suffering on someone else? In almost every instance, it is revenge for something; either a wrong done to the offended person, or a PERCEIVED wrong done to the offended person, even if the victim had nothing to do with the perceived wrong. Revenge, in a nutshell, is an attempt to inflict pain and suffering on another for the express purpose of getting someone else to understand the pain he/she has inflicted on others.

The real reason these vile women want to destroy so many men is because they want to destroy families. In a 1981 fundraising letter by a relief organization for Kosovo refugees, feminist author and activist Vivian Gornick said:
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."
-Vivian Gornick, quoted by Beverly LaHaye, Child Care and Small Business: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Regulation and Business Opportunities, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, Portland, OR, Mar 5, 1988, Vol. 4, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989, p. 10, [Pennsylvania State University]

Is it the prerogative of women to choose to become a wife and mother? Or, is it the prerogative of power-obessed feminists, who desire authority and control over everyone, to oppress women by making their choices for them? This provides evidence that, if they were allowed complete control, feminists would institute a communist society in which they would not allow women to have choice.

The most dedicated feminists have a similar philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), in which they want to remove the choice of women, and reshape them in the image of witches. The Lord God created woman with a specific purpose in mind:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
-Genesis 2:18-24

In another chapter, we will cover more details on this, but in short, the term "help meet" literally means an assistant fit for the intended function, and in this context, it means the Lord God designed men and women to be married, with the man in authority and charge of all matters, while the woman's duty is to assist him in whatever he requires, which would automatically imply the production of children because only women can give birth. There is no Biblical mandate requiring women to marry and have children, but this is the express design of her mind and body, and therefore, the life choices of women will reflect that desire because she was made that way.

At its core, feminism is rebellion against God, and because God made woman in the image of man, to help men, therefore, feminists must rebel against men to rebel against God. In fact, Gloria Steinem, one of the most popular feminist voices of the 20th century (and uncoincidentally, an undercover CIA agent), stated the true goal of feminism is not only to take away a woman's choice to be a help meet, but also to destroy her marriage, and her faith in the Christian God of the Bible: "Here are the aims of feminism: We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement."

-Gloria Steinem, The Saturday Review of Education, Issue #4, March, 1973

When Steinem said that her statement was not a "public relations movement," she meant that she was not just trying to shift society in towards an idea by using propaganda. Rather, her goal is to destroy the Christian God of the Bible from the minds of the people, and replace Him with the demonic ideology of humanism and feminism.
(To learn more about the origin and deception of public relations, read Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The vast majority of the women I have talked to in my lifetime cannot stand the feminist movement, but sadly, many of them still think it was a good thing in certain aspects. This could not be further from the truth because, as Jesus told us, you cannot get good fruit from an evil tree:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
-Matthew 7:17-19

The more I speak with women in general, the more I can see the plague of feminist propaganda infecting their speech. This is because women have been brainwashed by the corporate mainstream propaganda machine (i.e. the fake news) to such a degree, that even though they might profess to hate feminist ideology, they have still adopted some of its philosophy without realizing it, which is one of the many reasons I thought it necessary to write this book.

The mouth of strange women is a deep pit:
he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.
-Proverbs 22:14

I also want to emphasize that, although it is important for women to read and understand this book, I am writing this just as much for men (if not moreso) than for women, and this is because feminism harms men FAR more than women. In order for feminsts to achieve their ulitmate goals, men must be sacrificed on the altar of gynocentrism. (i.e. the worship of women) In later chapters, we are going to learn about the extreme extent to which men have been negatively affected by feminism, to the point that it is literally killing them by slowly taking away everything they have worked so hard for, and every small joy they might look forward to in this world.

Popular 20th century spokeswoman for the feminist movement, Andrea Dworkin, did not leave any room for speculation when she said: "Any man will follow any feminine looking thing down any dark alley; I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a s*** bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you'd need good silver."

-Andrea R. Dworkin, Mercy, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993, ISBN: 9780941423885

Putting aside the fact that Dworkin looks like an over-sized meatball in a wig, and that it is very unlikely that any man would follow her anywhere, I would like readers to consider: What happened to the "equality" that the definition of feminism described to us? What happened to "health?" What happened to "non-violence?"

The summer of 2020 is sarcastically called "The Summer of Love" because BLM (Black Lives Matter, a racist, terrorist organization) did billions of dollars of property damage in various cities across the country by inciting black communities to roam the streets, looting houses and businesses, and burning them down (while emergecy services and law enforcement stood by and did nothing), and the legacy media (i.e. fake news) called it a "mostly peaceful protest." Likewise, we have feminists calling themselves "mostly peaceful," but their ideology is about women torturing and murdering husbands and fathers, mothers killing their own children, and females ruling over the ashes of society with an iron fist of terror and despair.
(See Joseph Wulfsohn, "CNN panned for on-air graphic reading 'fiery but mostly peaceful protest' in front of Kenosha fire," FOX News, Aug 27, 2020, retrieved Mar 5, 2024, [https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-panned-for-on-air-graphic-reading-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protest-in-front-of-kenosha-fire])

Although feminism is an evil philosophy that needs to be destroyed for the good of mankind, it should be noted that it is not the source of the problem; rather, it is a symptom of the underlying problem. The underlying problem is sin, specifically, the hatred and greed in the hearts of mankind.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [abandoned to sin; having no virtue or grace], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity [malice without provocation]; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection [queers, transgenders, pedophiles, etc], implacable [cannot be appeased, stubborn in hatred], unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:28-32

This is the Lord God telling us that those who do not like to retain God in their knowledge are given over to their sin, to follow the lusts of their flesh. They are fools, which are people who cannot be reasoned with because of their corruption of sin in their hearts. They are murderous, deceitful fornicators and adulterers, and rebellious in every aspect of their lives.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
-Psalm 14:1

This is one of the reasons why the Bible tells us that rebellion and witchcraft are like unto each other:

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
-1 Samuel 15:23

Do not misunderstand, this is not saying that rebellion is the equivalent of witchcraft, but rather, it is like unto it because witchcraft, at its core, is rebellion against the authority of God. The Lord established a hierachy of authority, of which women are at the bottom:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11:3

Although there are many examples of women throughout history being given ruling authority, they were not designed to be in authority over men. When they seek to overthrow God's established rule of men over women, then they seek to do evil because they are following the sinful lust in their hearts.

An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore
a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
-Proverbs 17:11

That this is a rebellious people, lying children,
children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
-Isaiah 30:9

I take no issue with virtueous women being judges or holding political offices because as long as good is done according to the moral laws of God, it will only benefit our society, but again, men are designed by God to take on those roles, not women. I am thankful that our First Amendment-protected freedom of speech allows these foolish women to express their vile worldview because it gives us insight into the malicious and filthy hearts of these women, to know that, if these women got their way, they would most definitely commit genocide.

Just to make sure I am providing ample evidence to prove the point, let's look at Valerie Solanas, who created a document called the "SCUM Manifesto" in 1967, with SCUM standing for "Society of Cutting Up Men." In her manifesto, Solanas said:
"It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y (male) gene is an incomplete x (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
-Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto, 1967, reprint by Verso Books, 2016, ISBN: 9781784784416

I have no idea what she meant by it being "possible to reproduce without the aid of males" because that has always been a requirement, and still continues to be a requirement. It sounds like Solanas had no understanding of biology or technology, as if she thought that if women need to reproduce, they could just go to a sperm bank, without understanding that sperm does not grow on trees.

Soon after publishing her rants on men being a disease, she acted on her philosophy, entered film director Andy Warhol's New York studio, shot him twice, and then attempted to kill his manager, but the gun jammed. Solanas turned herself in to the police and plead guilty to reckless assault with intent to harm, and although Warhol survived, it was attempted first degree murder (i.e. murder with premeditated intent to kill), and Solanas received a mere three years in prison as a sentence because, as we will learn more about later, women often get lesser punishments than men for the same crimes.
If any female readers take objection to the previous feminist quotes, please keep in mind that they believe you are automatically on their side, whether you think you want to be or not. They simply think you are uneducated, and need their indoctrination program.

These feminists believe all women should automatically want to kill off 90% of men, which would include their fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. Feminist author and journalist, Judith Levine, says that all women secretly hate men, even if they do not consciously realize it:
"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
-Judith Levine, My Enemy, My Love: Women, Men, and the Dilemmas of Gender, Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1993, p. 3, ISBN: 9780385410809

When Levine says "man-hating is shadowed by ambivalence," she means that, first, she believes that women have a natural inclination to love (which is not true; case in point: feminists), and because of that love, they are confused and flustered with feelings. Levine is arguing the mixed feelings because she starts with a baseless presupposition that all women hate men instinctively from birth, and she believes most remain unaware of it.

This is also based on the world's misconception of love as an emotion, or that it is a "good" emotion that is somehow implanted into the nature of women. Love is an act, not an emotion; the benevolent good will of selflessness to give to someone else, which men are more apt to do because their God-given role in society demands it.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Love" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
-1 Timothy 5:8

I thought it should be noted that all the feminists I have quoted thus far have unnecessary jobs as authors, teachers, editors, and office administrators, but we never hear about these prominent feminists having vital jobs that are necessary for the health and productivity of society. We never hear about feminists being construction workers, trash collectors, coal miners, assembly workers, plumbers, electricians, sewage maintenance, or any other job that requires a hard day's labor, and that tells us quite a bit about why so many of them have such strong socialist and communist views.

There are some readers who may never have heard or read these things before, and it may have surprised you to see how crazy feminst ideas are, but I can assure you that this is but a tiny fraction of the deeper insanity behind feminism. Earlier, we read some fictitious definitions of feminism, and before we begin to unravel the deception of feminism, I want to provide my own definition of it, which feminists will hate because it is much more accurate:

Feminism is the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices.

To understand this, let's look at a phrase that has been put on many e-cards and bumper stickers: "A woman's faults are many, but men have only two: Everything they say and everything they do!" There are some who would take this as a joke, but these types of e-cards and bumper stickers are spread around primarily by feminists, and as we have already seen from the quotes above, they are NOT joking.

Whenever something bad happens to these women, in their eyes, it is always the fault of a man because, in general, women will do anything they can to avoid taking responibility for their bad decisions. Their hearts are dead set on justifying themselves good simply because they are females, and so the only other class they have to blame for what happens to them is the male class because it is always easier to blame those in authority, rather than take personal responsibility.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15

Because of their design, women are more emotional, and it is for a very simple reason: Females are the bearer of children. Babies have no means to communicate other than their feelings, and therefore, until they are grown enough to use words, women must be attuned to emotions to understand the needs of a small child.

It is imperative that women have empathy towards their children in order to understand their needs when they are babies, but that also means that, when it comes to the adult world, women tend to interpret many things through their emotions first and foremost, which makes them poor leaders, a hinderence in dangerous situations, and bad decision makers overall. Therefore, more often than not, women attempt to justify themselves by the emotions of their hearts, rather than by the reason of their minds, and the Lord God has warned us that it is deceitful to follow the feelings the heart over the truth:

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

When a woman makes decisions based on her feelings, it can often lead to grief that others will have to suffer. A woman's feelings often skew her perception, so she sees something as "true," when the facts prove that what she believes is not true, and that is why we so often hear the phrase "my truth" instead of "THE truth," because the truth would lead to women having to suffer the consequences of their choices, and to avoid that, they gravitate towards lies that make them feel better about themselves.

Because of the lack of support for those who have suffered the destructive consequences of feminist actions, a group has arisen on the internet who refer to themselves as the "Red Pillers." The name is based on a movie, The Matrix, in which the protagonist is given a choice between taking a red pill and a blue pill; the blue pill would allow him to stay under the delusions of whatever he wanted to believe, while the red pill would destroy the delusions around him and give him understanding of the truth behind the fake world he lived in.

It is difficult to define what it means to be a "red piller," and so I will not attempt to do so, nor will I claim any association with them. I am simply for truth and against error. However, back in 2016, I began to research what some of these red pillers were saying about what it was like to grow up with a single, feminist mother, and needless to say, the stories were not good.

For example, the following anonymous author said:
"Some of the things I heard from my mother growing up: 'Most men are evil. They cause all of the wars in the world. I want you to be one of the very rare good men. I want you to grow up to be more like a woman, someone who cares about other people.' She told me that my father was abusive and used to beat her every day, and if I misbehaved (had my own opinion) I was being 'abusive' and was acting like him. His name became a swear word in my house. Got me heavily involved in acting (which I did like) and forced me to take jazz and bellay [sic; ballet] classes, which I hated. Screamed at me for hours when I didn't get parts. Took me out of school and home schooled me anytime I began to seem too independent or made a large group of friends. Constantly talked about how poor we were, like a badge of honor. Still managed to find money for a boob job. I found out later that we had always been solid middle class, and all of the guilt I felt for having anything at all was misplaced. Tried to talk to me about sexual things, like who she thought was hot. Tried to have me read erotic literature she wrote. When I told her to stop talking like that, she said, "What's the problem, is it because your mom is so hot?" She told me she wanted a brother/sister relationship with me now that I was a teenager."
-Username confuseacatlmtd, "Growing up with a single, feminist mother," retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3jo7ac/growing_up_with_a_single_feminist_mother/]

Let's flip that scenario and analyze it again. Let's suppose a father was trying to get his daughter to read his erotic literature. What would happen to the father in that scenario? We all know that a man would have CPS and/or the police called on him, he could be arrested, and possibly have his daughter taken from him, but because it was a woman to her son, now it is suddenly acceptable.

This young man went on to describe how his sister was raised to be a vicious, hateful feminist, and how once during a get-together with his mother's friends, his sister said she would cut off his male member, and everyone laughed. She received no punishment for her words. He decided to reply the same threat to cut off her female genitles, and he then got in a lot of trouble for saying it because his mother's hatred for all things male had reached a level so deep, she was willing to sacrifice the well-being of her son to justify herself, which demonstrates that the so-called "equality" feminsits talk about is a lie designed only to make them sound good to the public.

Another man gives his testimony:
"My mother left my father when I was 10 and came out as a lesbian. She took my brother (who was an infant in diapers at the time) and me to a new city. We lived with 'Auntie Sue' for a while, who I just assumed was a long lost relative. FF [fast forward] 25 years and my brother and I are grown up and married and we're both strongly anti-feminist. Our mother is still a man-hater, but she's waaaay more mellow nowadays. 'Auntie Susie' is long gone, after beating my mother to a pulp a few times while drunk. A long string of 'Aunties' came and went as we grew up."
-Anonymous, "I'm the son of an angry lesbian man-hating feminist," Reddit, retrieved Aug 31, 2016, [https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tcjet/im_the_son_of_an_angry_lesbian_manhating_feminist/]

This woman CHOSE to leave her husband, and it was not because of physical violence. The general perception of a lot of people in my generation (i.e. I was born in 1982, which puts me in an awkward inbetween stage; late Gen X, early Gen Y) is that we tend to perceive things based on television programs, which commonly portrayed the poor abused wife, mother, or girlfriend versus the vicious, overbearing man. Although I stopped watching television and mainstream media nearly 20 years before I wrote this book, I watched a lot of TV when I was young, and the wickedness of feminism was never portrayed in TV and movies because feminism was a corporately-funded, nagging source of indoctrination that would not allow producers to create anything that upset the feminist narrative.

A response came in to the story above, and I censored the derogatory language:
"Sorry this is long: My mother abandoned our family, leaving me, my father and my sister. Two years later after several failed drug tests, my mother informed both me and my sister that feminism freed her from my father, and was going to help her win us in court, so that she could further '**** that son-of-a-***** over.' In-so-far as I can tell up to this point my father really didn't do anything wrong to her, even speaking to her family members shes the one that just freaked out and left. She is now doing this to the father of a new child, and has tried to tell me that 'its my debt to her as a man to take the kid. I'm a part of the problem, I'm a part of the patriarchy.' I don't speak to her anymore honestly. It took her... while working in health care as a nurse to be found as unsuitable as a mother, while watching two children who died under her care. Though it was proven to not be her fault, as a nurse she could have prevented it. I slowly began to see feminism as the enemy for 3 reasons:
1. She used the words 'I'm a feminist...' to rally every feminist org[anization] for women in my area to her side, getting pro-bono [i.e. no expense] lawyers, and lots of people on school boards on her side, she got me labeled as mentally deficient, and put in slow classes until I was about 14. (To the irony of my 9th grade teacher *****ing that I was clearly a genius. [A]lso I'm currently going into math and physics, though I dont think I'm a genius.)
2. At no point did any of these organizations even question her. That 'just believe women' **** was around back then. They didn't believe she was [a] drug addict, or really anything at all. It was 'the patriarchy' trying to **** her over. They made a persistent slew of allegations against my father, none of which ever held up in court.
3. The feminists organizations actively told her not to pay child support, and to do whatever it took to get me and my sister back. While at her house once, some of them came over and told me how I deserved to die because I was a boy...
I honestly expect an apology from anyone calling themselves a feminist. This wasn't a few people helping my mother, but huge organizations. At this point feminism just disgusts me, namely their inability to stop using logical fallacies, and psychological fallacies."
-Username wlxr, "I'm the son of an angry lesbian man-hating feminist," Reddit, retrieved Aug 31, 2016, [reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tcjet/im_the_son_of_an_angry_lesbian_manhating_feminist]

Spaces like Reddit, and other more secure places like 4Chan (now 8Kun) have been the only spaces that men could go to in order to have their testimonies heard. Women do their best to shut down any conversation held by men about the rights of men, and understandably so because, if men figure out the scam and unite together, they can put a stop to all of it very quickly.

This is why feminists will do what they did at a 2012 presentation given by Warren Farrell, a man who has been outspoken about the rights of men. A camera crew documented the feminist protest which hurled foul language and accusations of rape against all who dared to enter, and for a while, prevented men from entering by blocking the doors, until they were forced to move by law enforcement.
For an example of how ergregious this protest was, one of the students at the university (a young man) had purchased a ticket to hear the presentation, but was blocked by the protestors, and asked to momentarily step aside by security for his own safety. The crowd of vicious protestors cheered as he was turned away from the doors.

The camera crew asked the young man why he wanted to go see Farrell's presentation, and he said:
"[@2:22] Two of my friends committed suicide, and I want the peace of understanding why that happened... It happened about two years ago; it was one after the other, like that."
(See 2012 Feminist Protest of Warren Farrell Men's Rights Speech, Creation Liberty Evangelism Rumble Channel, Mar 5, 2024, [https://rumble.com/v4hftef-2012-feminist-protest-of-warren-farrell-mens-rights-speech.html])

The camera crew also asked a young feminist woman if she wanted to ask him why he decided to come to listen to Farrell speak. She said:
"[@2:12] I don't—I'm not sufficiently convinced that I'll receive an answer that isn't what I presented."
(See 2012 Feminist Protest of Warren Farrell Men's Rights Speech, Creation Liberty Evangelism Rumble Channel, Mar 5, 2024, [https://rumble.com/v4hftef-2012-feminist-protest-of-warren-farrell-mens-rights-speech.html])

Allow me to translate that for you: "If I ask him why he came to see Farrell speak, he might give me a reasonable answer that does not fit my narrative, so therefore, I will not ask him, and continue to verbally berate him and physically push him away from the doors." I am thankful that this young woman said this because it reveals the malicious core of feminist ideology, in which they will not hear anything except what they preconceive to be true, and the only other place you see that type of mentality is in religious cults, which is fitting because gynocentrism is a religion.

I am not any kind of supporter of Warren Farrell because of his leftist leanings on many issues, but generally, he is a reasonable man. He told his audience that night that this was the first time in 30 years of speaking he had ever seen a protest like that at one of his events, and when asked why the feminists (who, Warren informed his audience, were part of the socialist party) were holding up signs that accused Warren of promoting "rape culture," he said:
"[@5:14] From their perspective, men are very frequently people who rape, and that men have perpetuated a rape culture that says it's okay for men to rape. I have, in the past, questioned the degree to which that data was accurate, but when I parsed that data and said, 'Here's the data that's accurate, here's the data that's not accurate', when you overinflate the data, it makes rape appear insignificant... to speak as reasonably as I can on their behalf, that's what they would say."
-Warren Farrell, "Warren Farrell Speaks in Toronto: Transforming the Boys Crisis," Canadian Centre for Men and Families, Nov 23, 2012, retrieved Mar 5, 2024, [https://youtu.be/P6w1S8yrFz4?si=edBYJ6LYcaldx6gX&t=313]

In other words, Farrell simply showed feminists the statistics, while exposing the false numbers they were preaching, and because feminism is a religion, they burn the heretic at the stake. In their minds, Farrell becomes a teacher and endorser of rape, and thank God we have government and law because without it, these feminist psychopaths would kill people to justify themselves.

So because they cannot kill without consequences, they do other things that they believe will not reap any punishment, and that usually manifests itself in the form of disruption of speeches (as we saw in the case of Warren Farrell), or other disruptive actions, like pulling fire alarms, which is foolish because sounding a fire alarm under false pretenses is a Class-4 felony, that (depending on the state you are in) carries different punishments that may include up to a year in prison and (as of 2024) a $10,000 fine. For example, the following year after Farrell's speech, a men's rights group met for discussion, and feminists pulled the fire alarm to disrupt it.
(See "Protester Pulls Fire Alarm At UofT MRA Meeting," University of Toronto, Apr 4, 2013, retrieved Mar 6, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q])

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him... An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
-Proverbs 6:16-18

As I was writing the 2nd edition of this book, I saw a video in which a woman addressed feminists who were ripping down other people's signs from lamp posts around an American college campus. She asked them why they were doing it, and they said people were not supposed to have signs on posts, but the woman pointed out that the feminists were putting up their signs in place of the signs they ripped down. The point of this story is to help explain that feminist know their ideology cannot stand on its own merit in a free speech market, so to get people to accept feminism, they have to censor competing ideas from being read or heard.

It should be noted that suppression of opposing critiques is called facscism, and I point this out because feminists often hypocritically accuse their opponents of being "fascists:"

fascism (n): a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism
(See 'fascism', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Farrell rightly pointed out that feminists have skewed data to fit their narrative, and that is something we will learn more about later in this book. We are going to learn that feminists are queens of skewing data to deceive people about reality, because if they were to debate on equal terms, they know they would quickly lose, men would quickly see how privileged women are, men would take notice of how much women have disenfranchised them, and the entire feminist house of cards would collapse.





 

The title of this chapter will likely confuse and/or anger some who do not understand it, so we need to define our terms to reason the matter out:

religion (n): any system of faith and worship; in this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of Christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers
(See 'religion', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 7, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Feminism preaches a "gynocentric" message, and that is a term difficult to find in modern dictionaries for some unknown reason, but to understand the meaning, we simply need to break down the parts of the word. For example, most people are familiar with the word 'gynocology', which is made up of the word 'gyno' meaning "woman," and 'ology' meaning "the study of," to get "the study of women," and the word 'geocentric' is made up of 'geo' meaning "earth" and 'centric' meaning "center," to get "the earth is the center."
(Read The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

With a little grammatical math, we can see that 'gynocentric' means 'the woman is the center' or 'the woman is the focus'. Just as geocentrisim believes that everything revloves around the earth, so gynocentrism believes that everything revolves around the woman, and everything should be built around her satisfaction.

Although you may often hear feminists refer to different "types" or "waves" of feminism, I will provide evidence to show that ALL types of feminism are based on the destructive ideology of worshiping females. Female worship has been practiced for thousands of years, which some people might know by the more common term 'witchcraft', and to understand this more clearly, we will need to look into history.

witchcraft (n): the practices of witches; sorcery; enchantments; intercourse with the devil; power more than natural
(See 'witchcraft', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 7, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Alhough there has been a rising number of people who expose the darkness of feminism, many of them foolishly believe in the tenants of evolutionism, which is another nonsensical religion that falsely parades itself a "science," when it is not anything close to science. (1Ti 6:20) I have another lengthy teaching series here at creationliberty.com that explores the details of that subject called "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion." However, I am writing this book according to the true history of the world, that it (along with the entire universe, made up of two words, 'uni' meaning "one" and 'verse' meaning "sentence," Gen 1:3) was created by the Lord God commanding it into existence roughly 6,000 years ago (by adding up the dates of geneology in the Bible), being crafted in six literal days (Exd 20:9-11), and that we are all descended from the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve).

The fall of mankind began with the Satan (the Devil) lying to the woman (Eve) while he was in the form of a serpent. She believed the lies of Satan more than the truth of God and her husband, and she chose to rebel against their commandments to gain power:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
-Genesis 3:1-7

When the Devil told the woman that she could be a goddess, she rebelled against the authority over her, she threw aside all thought of consequences, forgot all the wonderful comforts and blessings she was provided by God and her husband, and she made a decision she could never take back. Although Adam stood next to her and watched this happen, he did not put his foot down and stop her, and instead, he allowed her too much freedom to make her own decision about what she thought was best for her, even though he knew it was wrong.

The Bible later explains to us that Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit, meaning that he did it for a different reason that Eve did it. Eve was deceived by the Devil, but Adam ate the fruit to save his wife, putting himself under the same guilt as the woman he loved.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
-1 Timothy 2:11-14

This is not to say that women cannot speak among the church, but they have NO teaching authority over the church according to the commandments of God, and those females who attempt to be pastors, deacons, or elders are in rebellion against Christ. The main point is that Adam knew what he was doing, and though Eve was tricked, this did not clear her of guilt since was tricked only because she was unfaithful and disobedient to God and Adam.

Therefore, God punished Satan and prophesied the coming of Christ to defeat him, and God punished Adam by telling him he was going to have to work himself to death:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-Genesis 3:17-19

What was Adam's crime? He put himself under submission of the woman who was supposed to be in submission to him. The man fell to the seduction of the woman's words (which she repeated from the Devil), rather than listening to the truth of God's Word, and this is a core theme will see echoed time and time again as we analyze various aspects in this book.

The woman was also punished:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
-Genesis 3:16

Ladies, read that carefully: Your submission is not just a commandment from God, it is your punishment, and you need to accept your punishment with grace and obedience. Men were punished by having to suffer in labor and die, and most of them accept it with grace and obedience, so why do women today have such a problem accepting their punishment in like manner? Ultimately, feminism is the attempt of women to absolve themselves of their punishment, while making men take twice the punishment they were alotted by God.

We just read the definition of 'witchcraft' which said that it was "intercourse with the devil; power more than natural," and we can see this in women who war against the Word of God, while trying to obtain power (i.e. authority) beyond what is natural for women to have, which includes physical, social, economic, and spiritual power. The origin of the word 'witch' comes from the Old English word 'wicca', which refers to the practice of a magician's craft, which includes, but is not limited to, sorcery (from the Greek word 'pharmakeia', which is where we get 'pharmaceuticals' or 'drugs' for short), divination (foretelling future events outside the bounds of God's providence), and necromancy (communing with the dead), all of which many people are accustomed to seeing witches practice, either in reality or through fictional media.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
-Galatians 5:19-21

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e. abortion], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
-Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Please take note that those who cause their son or daughter "to pass through the fire" are those new-born babies who were burned alive as a sacrifice to false gods on an altar, and at the time, this was commonplace among savage tribes, especially in regions of northern Africa. It is known today as "abortion" (i.e. the murder of babies), and as we can see in the Bible, it is directly linked to witchcraft, as I covered in another teaching I produced here at creationliberty.com called "Abortion: Paganism, Satanism, Sacrifices & Witchcraft," which I encourage readers to check that out if you do not understand why child blood sacrifice is so important to witches, and why so many abortion clinics have side rooms with witchcraft altars.

There has been a rise of interest in witchcraft because of the movie industry, especially from series such as Harry Potter, and although these are fiction stories, they contain some foundational principles of witchcraft. For most people, their interest in witchcraft is fanciful, and so they take interest in it based on what they want it to be in their imagination, rather than what it actually is based on reality.

Because of this, it is common for someone to get into witchcraft initially, dabble in it, playing around with divination and Tarot cards for a while, and then slowly fade out of it because they discover that they cannot shoot fireballs like they saw in a movie. This is also why (thankfully) the amount of people claiming to be witches has not grown much over the past few decades, however, it should be noted that it is much more common for people to practice the tenants of witchcraft while claiming to be "Christians," although I will not have room to cover much on that topic in this book.

The main point I want readers to understand is that the principles of feminism are based on witchcraft, and that gynocentrism is the focus of both. This is why witchcraft operates so differently from society in many cases, putting the women in leadership positions over the men, and their influence through feminism has shaped our society to put men under the power of women in the same respect.

Arthur Conan Doyle is most famously known for writing the fiction Sherlock Holmes series, and although Doyle was a corrupt man in many ways because he practiced some of the divination that witches practice, Doyle was a critical thinker in other areas. In my writing, I most often pull wisdom from the Word of God and not from the words of men, but there was something that Doyle wrote in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (which was spoken by Holmes in the story), and I think it consolidates a Biblical theme, and causes us to pause and ponder: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Wordsworth Editions, 1992, p. 161, ISBN: 9781853260339

This is what I like to call "the obvious fact fallacy." The Lord Jesus Christ gave us a general proverb that was quite similar, just said a different way for a different context:

Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

Mankind automatically rejects those who come with an evil appearance because they want to avoid those who would do evil to them, but they often welcome those who come with a good appearance, not seeing the hidden evil within. Thus, Jesus warned us not to judge a man because he stands behind a pulpit with a Bible in his hand, but rather, we should judge man by what he says and does, whether or not they are in accordance with the doctrines of Scripture.

We have no need to warned of wolves because we know that wolves are dangerous, but we do need warning about wolves who dress themselves up as sheep, or rather, evil people who only shape their appearance to look like a sheep:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
-Matthew 7:15

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
-Matthew 23:25-26

In this context, the "obvious fact" would be that someone who wears a suit and tie and stands behind a pulpit with a Bible would be a "man of God," but in reality, upon examining his doctrine, we can find that his heart is far from God.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

An "obvious fact" is something that most people just accept as true without question or thought, and that is why "obvious facts" are deceptive in nature because they are lies that are reinforced by peer pressure and/or ridicule by the public at large. For example, if you were to say to the average American that the police have no obligation to protect you from danger, it would be unsurprising to be mocked by them for having no understanding, but in reality, Supreme Court decisions have found that police have no Constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm.

The following quote is a conclusion from a Supreme Court decision in which a woman attempted to sue a police department for failing to enforce a restraining order:
"Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband."
-Justice Scalia, "Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748," Docket No. 04-278, 2005, Justia U.S. Supreme Court, retrieved Mar 12, 2024, [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/748/]

This conclusion means that, although we would hope that a police officer would have a moral compass to protect the public, American police have no legal obligation to protect citizens, and I agree with this decision because we have a 2nd Amendment protection, which prevents government from restricting our right to keep and bear arms. We the People (i.e. American citizens) are responsible for our own protection and security, to craft and purchase weapons for the defense of our property (which includes our familes and our own lives), and I believe a minority of Americans today understand this.

Now that we have a basic understanding of the "obvious fact" fallacy, let's consider the general statement pushed by feminists, which says that "men have always oppressed women." I have never heard anyone argue that some men in history have wrongfully mistreated the women under their care, but women have always enjoyed great privilege under a patriarchal (man-run and operated) society because of the benevolence and sacrifice of men, and furthermore, it is women that have used and abused men far more frequently than men to women, but sadly, this history is rarely taught in schools, and never reported by the legacy (i.e. fake news) media.

It is important to note that all the major disciplines in the world have (by the grace of God) been invented, developed, and maintained by men; these include science, engineering, mathematics, art, philosophy, law, education, and much more. It is also important to note that women, even when given free opportunity, have never played a role in the creation of these disciplines, nor have they done much to develop them, but feminists have, in recent years, demanded that women take control of that which they did not create.

Why is it that men should not be in charge of the things that they created? Why did men suffer and die to invent so many things that have greatly benefitted society at large and given many comforts to women, only to have women take them over after all the hard work has been done, mock the men who created them, and be forced to listen to feminists declare that women deserve all the credit?

For example, let's suppose a man built a log cabin out in the woods (i.e. chopped the wood, fought off predators, and suffered harsh weather conditions to construct it), took up residence there, and then met a woman who was lost in the woods, so he took her in and allowed her to benefit from the shelter and warmth his cabin provided, but soon after, she accused him of "abuse," demanded "equal rights" to the cabin, told him how stupid he was, declared that she was the inspiration for the cabin in the first place, and that she should be in full control of it. Is the woman in this example thankful, just, understanding, and kind? Or is she brutal, railing, ignorant, and vicious?

The vicious woman of the cabin decided she wanted all the benefits that the man had, but without having to do all the tedious and sometimes dangerous work that men have to do to obtain those benefits. This is sometimes referred to as "proof of stake" rather than "proof of work," meaning that women are only claiming a stake in the things they want, but men are required to work for it.

These lazy, privileged, vindictive women decided to hold the first American "Woman's Rights Convention" and sign the "Declaration of Sentiments," which is hilarious when we consider that a 'sentiment' is an opinion based on one's feelings, not based on facts: (Click Image for Larger View)
(See Library of Congress, "Our Roll of Honor. Listing women and men who signed the Declaration of Sentiments at first Woman's Rights Convention, July 19-20, 1848," retrieved Mar 12, 2024, [https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbcmil.scrp4006701/?st=text])

The feminist Declaration of Sentiments claims that men have taken from women "all right in property," that "all colleges [have been] closed against her," that men have kept women from "wealth and distinction," and that in law and divorce, that "the supremacy of man" had given "all power into his hands." These women complained that they were forced to "submit to laws" created by men, but women "had no voice" in the creation or structuring of those laws.
(See Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, Seneca Falls, New York, July 19-20, 1948, retrieved Mar 12, 2024, [https://www.womenshistory.org/sites/default/files/document/2017-11/THE%20DECLARATION%20OF%20SENTIMENTS%20AND%20RESOLUTIONS.pdf])

Only a small fraction of Americans were eligible to vote prior to the 19th century (for both men and women), and despite the great prosperity and freedom that was achieved in the United States at that time, a very small number of easily-discontented, privileged, yowling women decided they wanted more, and they were willing to lie to get it. They began to verbally attack the patriarchy under which they lived, and before we continue, let's define what that means:

patriarch (n): the father and ruler of a family; one who governs by paternal right
(See 'patriarch', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 13, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

As we read earlier, paternal authority was established by the Lord God in Genesis, which means that mankind is designed to operate under a patriarchy. Thus, it is important to note that women who fight against the patriarchy are fighting against God, which is why you will see so many feminists who are also atheists.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
-Ephesians 5:22-24

Feminist hate these verses, and war against God and men, as we can see from one of the original signers of the "Declaration of Sentiments," Elizabeth Stanton, who described her version of 'patriarchy':
"[A] man's government, is civil, religious, and social disorganization. The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike discord, disorder, disease, and death."
-Elizabeth C. Stanton, "The Destructive Male," Women's Suffrage Convention, Jan 1, 1868, retrieved Mar 19, 2024, [https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2017/03/21/the-destructive-male-1868/]

In her view, men are the worst thing that has ever been, while women are the best thing that has ever been. This feminist view is the same ideology we see in oppressive royalty, where they constantly threaten, beat, and tear down their subjects, while believing themselves to be superior, having divine right, so they will be worshiped, never questioned, and their subjects will not rise up against them.

This shows us that when feminists define the word 'patriarchy', they go far beyond the basic definition of the word. We can still see this today from feminist authors at CNN, who provide a definition of 'patriarchy' from a feminist psychologist:
"A society is patriarchal to the degree that it promotes male privilege by being male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centered. It is also organized around an obsession with control and involves as one of its key aspects the oppression of women."
-Eliza Anyangwe & Melissa Mahtani, "What is patriarchy? What does it mean and why is everyone talking about it?" CNN, retrieved Mar 13, 2024, [https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/world/what-is-patriarchy-explainer-as-equals-intl-cmd/index.html]

The problem with this definition is that it automatically assumes that men are evil and women are good. Feminists definition dive deep into conjecture, presuming that all women were oppressed and denied basic freedoms, while all men were living life like it was one big party, without any restriction.

To simplify this, the basic defintion of patriarchy is that men are the leaders. The basic definition of patriarchy according to feminism is that men are the monstrous villans that cause all suffering and are the source of all problems for women, and so women should be worshiped as goddesses, while men are enslaved to those goddesses.

The reality is that the patriarchy has created nearly everything we enjoy today for the benefit of women, and women have enjoyed those great benefits without having to do any of the hard labor to create them. And even though women did not build the society in which they enjoy many privileges, men throughout history have served under the leadership of women.

Feminists often try to rewrite history to make it seem like women were always under the oppression of men, when real history shows that there have been many female rulers in various nations, and these are but a tiny fraction that could be named:

NAME LOCATION YEAR Pharoah Nefertiti Egypt 1370 B.C. Pharoah Nitocris Egypt 430 B.C. Pharoah Hatshepsut Egypt 1479 B.C. Pharoah Sobekneferu Egypt 1776 B.C. Pharoah Hatshepsut Egypt 1479 B.C. Pharoah Sobekneferu Egypt 1776 B.C. Pharoah Twosret Egypt 1189 B.C. Empress Julia Augusta Rome 27 B.C. Empress Julia Aggripina Rome 49 Empress Domitia Longina Rome 81 Queen Maria Theresa Hungary/Bohemia 1740 Queen Caterina Cornaro Cyprus 1473 Queen Margaret I Denmark/Norway/Sweden 1375 Queen Elizabeth England 1558 Queen Anne (of Austria) France 1615 Queen Jezebel Israel 843 B.C. Empress Catherine (the Great) Russia 1762 Empress Dowager Ci'an China 1861 Empress Theodora Byzantine 527

It should be noted that being in a position of power is not near as wonderful as people make it out to be because it most often comes with many hardships. Though a powerful ruling position might give one access to many luxuries that are coveted by the poor, it comes with the price of competitors seeking to usurp power by any means, whether it be through constant political destruction of one's reputation in the public eye, blackmail, and sometimes assassination.

There have no doubt been many wicked kings over the past few thousand years, but the darkness under the rule of queens has been far more grievous, and Jezebel has been a long-standing, well-known example of such ergregious oppression. After Jezebel married King Ahab, she persuaded him to decree and subsidize the worship of a false nature god she favored, and afterwards, she sought the execution of all those who did not worship her false god.

Jezebel went so far in her persecution, she sought the death of the high prophets of God, including Elijah, who ended up having to wander in the desert for many years because of it. This conflict led to the famous showdown between Elijah and the 800 Jezebel-approved prophets of Baal, in which God demonstrated His power against the false prophets, and Elijah executed them for treasonous heresy against the Lord. (1Ki 18:32-40)

Just so we understand how bad she was, Ahab (the king) wanted a vineyard from Naboth, but he refused to give it to him, so Ahab went home, laid down on his bed and pouted (1Ki 21:4), so Jezebel said she would take care of it for him. She ordered two men to gather together the elders of that town, and they gave a false testimony that Naboth had blasphemed God and the king, so the town stoned Naboth to death, and Jezebel reported it to Ahab so he could take the vineyard. (1Ki 21:5-16)

Mary I of England is more commonly known by her nickname, "Bloody Mary" due to how many people she had executed in the name of the corrupt Catholic Church. Although she killed many people of a variety of beliefs and cultures, she executed enough Christians alone that she would have been able to hold at least one execution per week during her 5-year reign as queen, and her actions helped spur an exodus from England to the newly disovered American shores.

Annia Galeria Faustina Minor, more famously known as Faustina the Younger, married Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who was portrayed in the 2000 movie Gladiator, in which Marcus' son, Commodus, murders him to sieze the throne, but that is not what actually happened. Faustina was sexual promiscuous, and persuaded one of her lovers, Avidius Cassius, to rise up against her elderly husband who she thought would die soon anyway, but later, she betrayed Cassius to her husband, and so Marcus had Cassius assassinated.

Historical records indicate that Faustina took many lovers, from sailors to gladiators. Although such things could be rumors spread to defame her, she did have affairs, which lead us to speculate that the rumors are true, especially since it was not uncommon for influential Roman women to hire gladiators as "bodyguards" to use for sexual intercourse. That might be quite surprising to those who believe in the revisionist deceptions of feminism because, as we can see, women were not nearly as "oppressed" as they claim; rather, they are more manipulative than they admit.

The Roman empire also had an office of religious duty called a "Vestal Virgin," which was a symbol of power and safety in Rome. Six women would hold this title, and maintained a hearth fire in the heart of the city for a minimum of 30 years:
"Along with this central responsibility, the Vestal Virgins performed many other unique religious tasks and duties and were marked out from other Roman women by a number of special privileges, chief among them the right to decide over their own properties and fortunes."
-Robin L. Wildfang, Rome's Vestal Virgins, Routledge, 2006, p. 1, ISBN: 9781134151660

In addition to owning property and choosing her path of life after service (which was a great privilege that almost no man in Rome could have), the Vestal was given special transportation services with bodyguards (and anyone who interupted her path could be executed on the spot), she held custody of vital state documents, the judges in Rome held no power over her and had to bow their heads in her presence, she could give evidence in court by her word alone (without being under oath), and she could free or pardon any criminally condemned person by simply touching them. If any reader does NOT consider this evidence of gynocentrism, where women are worshiped as goddesses, then there is little evidence I could present to convince you.

Goddess worship is a very common occurrence in pagan culture, and because Catholicism was born out of pagan culture, that is why Catholics (i.e. Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, etc) still worship a goddess they call "Mary," and claim that grace cannot be received from God unless they first pray and give fealty to the goddess. Although I would like to give more details about that, it would make this book far too long, and so I would recommend another book I wrote called Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com if you want to learn more.

Because of the benevolence of men towards women, women in many cultures have been allowed to have the same status and power as men, but without near as much responsibility and consequences as men. The 19th century "Woman's Rights Convention" attempted to convince us that women have always been under oppression, prevented from doing or saying anything outside of a kitchen and nursery, but those who have studied history show us a very different picture:
"One of the most curious characteristics of that age was that women appear as much engaged in business and as interested in speculations as the men. Money is their first care. They work their estates, invest their funds, lend and borrow."
-Gaston Boissier, Cicero and His Friends: A Study of Roman Society in the Time of Caesar, Ward, Lock & Company, 1910, p. 96, [University of Iowa]

There are many cultures in which women had power and influence, but in this particular instance of Rome, women had legal right to own property (just as we saw with the Vestal Virgins), and participted in the same business and management practices as men. Women also owned slaves, just as the men did, and various historical accounts show that, just as the men, they were sometimes benevolent to their slaves, and sometimes cruel.

In fact, people in Roman culture so highly revered women who had shops or other businesses that special privileges were given to them. For example, if a woman was caught committing adultery against her husband, but she owned a business, she was exempt from prosecution under the law; an amazing privilege that was never afforded to men.
(See Maureen B. Fant & Mary R. Lefkowitz, Women's Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016, p. 129, ISBN: 9781472578488)

Even in the middle ages of Europe, there was great privilege and power among women, not the oppression described by modern-day feminists:
"Politically active women thrived in the Middle Ages—as queens, duchesses, countesses, and so on—because the medieval period seated political power within noble families, and women were members of those families. Medieval history may not be the obvious source for an examination of active women rulers—after all, books on the Middle Ages often center on the infighting between kings and their knights, while increasingly misogynistic monks produced diatribes against the wiles of women. Nevertheless, noble wives in the Middle Ages were regarded as co-rulers of territory, alongside their husbands, and were expected to participate in both political and military affairs even when their husbands were present and available. This expectation meant that medieval noblewomen had the opportunity to develop a personal ruling style."
-Katrin E. Sjursen, "What the Middle Ages Show About Women Leaders," The Atlantic, Feb 8, 2016, retrieved Mar 14, 2024, [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/are-women-leaders-hawks-or-doves-a-lesson-on-gender-equality-from-the-middle-ages/460386/]

I find it humorus that these feminist authors try to, on one hand, argue that women were oppressed and treated as nothing more than chattels, and then in their obsession with self-worship, end up arguing that women were privileged and powerful. In other words, they shoot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own arguments.

chattels (n): a movable article of personal property; any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land
(See 'chattels', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Award-winning author and historian Helena Schrader wrote that women throughout history were far less oppressed than we are made to believe by feminist revisionism:
"A woman's status was dictated by her class more than her sex. A woman of the nobility had more respect and power than a man of the middle classes, and a middle class woman had more respect and power than a peasant man. Women of higher social class could command, control, and indeed oppress men of lower status. Women who ruled kingdoms—whether Eleanor of Aquitaine or Melusinde of Jerusalem—and wielded power over noblemen, knights and bishops were not 'chattels.' Women who wrote theology and corresponded with popes and emperors and controlled the wealth and inhabitants of religious communities like Hildegard von Bingen [12th century Benedictine abbess, or female superior, who was a writer, composer, and philosopher] were not 'chattels.' Women who pursued trades and ran business, amassing fortunes while holding authority over journeymen and apprentices were not 'chattels.'"
-Helena P. Schrader, "Chattels—or What Medieval Women were NOT," retrieved Mar 14, 2024, [https://schradershistoricalfiction.blogspot.com/2016/05/chattels-or-what-medieval-women-were-not.html]

For the few feminists who will shut their mouths long enough to listen to the information, they typically deny it, ignore it, or most often, change the subject, whining about how much they are oppressed after just having returned from a nail salon and drinking a soy latte. But for those of you who want to hear the truth of, let's take a closer look at Jamestown, Virginia.

Jamestown was founded in 1607, and was financed by the Virginia Company of London under a charter granted by King James I. It was a grueling, four-month trip with many perils, and it should be noted that no women volunteered to join the first expedition (nor the next two ships that came afterwards) because it required a lot of strength and endurance to suffer, let alone the more dangerous hardships that came after they landed.

The location for Jamestown was selected for its means of defense, not for its potential for agriculture. The land was a swamp, filled with disease-ridden insects, dangerous wildlife, limited space, no natural growing food, and water not fit for drinking.

The conditions were so harsh, most of the men who traveled on the first expedition died within the first few months, but their numbers were replinished by the next couple of ships, bringing their population to roughly 500 men by the end of 1608. However, 1609 was the beginning of what is now known as "The Starving Time," which resulted in the death of nearly all of the population of Jamestown, leaving only 61 men alive to tell the tale.

The men of Jamestown were not able to plant near enough food in the harsh region, and the ship scheduled to bring more supplies got stranded in a storm, so they were forced to find other means to get out-of-season food. The Natives traded some food with them, but aside from that, the men had to eat their horses, and when the horses were gone, they had to turn to eating rats and mice, and when they could find no more of those, the men had nothing left to eat but the bodies of their dead.
(See Ivor N. Hume, "We Are Starved," Colonial Williamsburg, retrieved Mar 14, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20180306161448/http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter07/starving.cfm])

There may be some vicious feminists out there who claim that women are smarter, and would not volunteer to do something that dangerous because they have a greater intellect. This arrogance ignores the fact that men did not want to make the journey either, and a significant number of these men were captured off the streets of England, made indentured servants (i.e. slaves), and forced to make this journey under pain of death.

Some readers may have considered that it would be difficult to maintain a population without women because, after all, men cannot give birth, and because women did not want to make the dangerous journey, how did they solve this problem? A man named Owen Evans took it upon himself to enforce the "equality" that feminists hypocritically preach nowadays, and so he attempted to capture and enslave women to bring to Jamestown, but that backfired because he was quickly exposed, tried, found guilty, and then hanged, drawn, and quartered, which means he was tied to a wagon and dragged to the site of his execution, hanged slowly almost to the point of death, then emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and then dismembered.
(See Marcia Zug, "The Mail-Order Brides of Jamestown, Virginia," The Atlantic, Aug 31, 2016, retrieved Mar 15, 2024, [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-mail-order-brides-of-jamestown-virginia/498083/])

It should be noted that there are no records I could find of women being hanged, drawn, and quartered, and that is because women are most often given lesser punishments for the same crimes as men, which we will learn more about that in a later chapter. Evans was executed for the crime of "using the king's seal," and that is interesting because he did not need to use the king's seal to kidnap and enslave men, but he did need it to convince people that it was lawful to do it to women, and that is because women have always been a privileged, protected class of citizens with higher social status than men.

However, Jamestown was still stuck with the problem that they did not have any women to make familes, and women "were refusing to immigrate," so they had to lure them in with absurdly generous offers, to the point that it was oppressive to men. Women were offered free land, special inheritance agreements that circumvented normal inheritance law, so "colonial widows didn't feel economic pressure to remarry after their husband's death, and many chose to remain single."
(See Marcia Zug, "The Mail-Order Brides of Jamestown, Virginia," The Atlantic, Aug 31, 2016, retrieved Mar 15, 2024, [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-mail-order-brides-of-jamestown-virginia/498083/])

These women did not have to suffer and die to settle the land, they did not have to sweat and toil to till the fields, they did not have to bleed and ache to build the houses—they only had to wait until all the dying was done, and the building were filled with luxuries, to then show up to bear children, and receive all the rewards and benefits of the hard work of men. Before I continue to go over how horrible of a deal this was for the men, I want to note that we now have evidence to disprove the "Declaration of Sentiments" narrative we learned about earlier, in which feminists claimed that women could not own land, which is false, that women had no right to property, which is false, that women had no avenue to obtain wealth, which is false, and divorce laws gave all the power into the hands of men, which, as we are about to learn, is also false.

A man would make payment to sponsor a woman to come to Jamestown to marry him and start a family (becaue women did not have to pay their own way), but when the woman arrived, she was given privilege above the law, and had no obligation to keep her contractual agreement with the man who paid for her journey. Furthermore, women were not forced under law to keep their marriage vows, as was the case with Sarah Harrison:
"Virginia colonist William Roscoe persuaded his fiancée Sarah Harrison to sign a written contract promising to marry him. Then, shortly thereafter, Harrison jilted [rebuffed by a lover without warning] Roscoe and married the Reverend James Blair. Although there was undeniable proof of an engagement, Harrison received no punishment. Regardless of the actual written laws, colonial women like Harrison were often able to create their own marital rules. In fact, not only did Harrison jilt Roscoe without consequence, she was permitted to amend the traditional wedding vows during her 1687 wedding. According to witnesses, when the clergyman marrying them asked for her promise to obey, Harrison answered, 'No obey.' When the question was repeated, she replied 'No obey' again. After the third refusal, the reverend acquiesced to her demands and performed the ceremony with no mention of the promise to obey."
-Marcia A. Zug, Buying a Bride: An Engaging History of Mail-Order Matches, NYU Press, 2016, p. 28, ISBN: 9780814771815

I would ask readers to consider, why was there a need for a vow from a woman to be obedient to her husband if obedience was commonplace in the 17th century? If it is true that women were oppressed so horribly by men (as we are told by feminists today), would not their obedience be considered automatic due to fear? If men were so abusive as feminists claim, obedience would be automatic in the same way that a slave's obedience is assumed by his master. In other words, the abused fear the abuser, and thus, the real abusers were mostly women, and just like today, the vows of obedience taken by women are nothing more than a religious call to impress because the duty of obedience is as rare today as it was 300 years ago.

The problem of women lying and taking advantage of multiple men for money became so frequent, a law had to be passed to issue punishment if a woman cheated a man more than twice:
"Whereas, to the great contempt of the majesty of God and ill example to others, certain women within this Colony have of late, contrary to the laws ecclesiastical of the realm of England, contracted themselves to two several men at one time, whereby much trouble doth grow between parties, and the Governor and Council of State much disquieted: To prevent the like offense to others, it is by the Governor and Council ordered in court that every minister give notice in his church, to his parishioners, that what man or woman soever shall use any words or speech tending to the contract of marriage, though not right and legal, yet may so entangle and breed struggle in their consciences, shall for the third offense undergo either corporal punishment, or the punishment by fine, or otherwise, according to the guilt of the persons so offending."
-Elizabeth H. Lyons, "Introducing Flirting in Virginia," Evening Star, Washington D.C., Mar 26, 1905, p. 40, retrieved Mar 15, 2024, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-star/23001662/]

There were two major problems I found when reseaching this; the first being that a couple of centuries later, feminist revisionists would call this an "Anti-Flirting Bill," which is not at all what it was, and they use that term as propaganda to make men look evil for holding women accountable for their words and actions. The second problem is that, even though the law was passed, it went almost entirely unenforced (i.e. the only enforcement I saw documented was that one woman was forced to make a public apology, which was not the stipulation of the law), making it nothing more than a vain threat, and women's oppression of men continued because the men refused to discipline them.

For thousands of years, women have used their influence, mainly through sexual seduction, to gain male allies to do their bidding for them, having the man take all the risk while the woman remains safely hidden behind the scenes. Today, we often call these types of men "simps."

simp (n): simpleton; fool; a person, especially a man, who is excessively attentive or submissive to an object of sexual attraction
(See 'simp', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Simps are the acolytes of gynocentrism, and the raft keeping feminism afloat.

Simps bow to the feet of women who perceive themselves as royalty, and they cowar like pathetic worms at the voice of their goddesses. All women hate simps, but some women have figured out that they can make them into semi-slaves, without having to physically chain, by keeping them in a "friend zone," which gives those weak men hope to make the goddess his own, but in reality, he never had a chance. Simps are a plague on our society, and since women were permitted to vote, they have (more often than not) voted in simps, who have promised to use their governing power to take more from strong, responsible men and give to lazy, brawling women, without those women having to give anything in return.

The following author, Danielle Crittenden, laments the loss of fancy balls in which women used to dress up to go meet potential suitors who might ask them to dance, and the loss of general chivalry in our society:
"And this—not the settings of silverware—is what we modern women ought to take away from these old stories: the importance of agreed-upon standards of behavior. It is these above all else that we lost in the sexual revolution. These standards appear very musty to us now, like archaic codes of medieval chivalry. Men no longer stand when a woman enters a room. We don't expect men to let us enter or leave elevators first or to surrender their seats to us on the bus, even if we're pregnant... We got rid of those rules of etiquette because they drew seuxal distinctions—distinctions that seemed odious [repulsive] because they are presumed female weakness... That we may say good riddance to the strict rules of the past does not make it any easier to operate in a world in which there are very few rules at all."
-Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, Simon and Schuster, 2009, ISBN: 9781439127742

Although I understand Danielle's sentiments, and empathize with the loss of certain traditions that were destroyed by feminism, she is like many men and women today, in which she is brainwashed so deeply by feminism, she cannot see feminism in the words that she thinks is fighting against feminist ideology. For example, she rightly points out that "chivalry" used to involved all the men standing when a lady entered the room, but the only other place in society that we are expected to do such things are in honor of positions of high status and power, such as when a judge enters the courtroom, and thus, chivalry itself was an invention of feminists who wanted men to honor their higher status and power of women over that of men.

Men are expected to kneel before kings, and obviously, we men are also rightly expected to kneel before God in worship of Him because we lower ourselves in the presence of those who are in power over us. Since women are subservient to men, why is it that women are not kneeling before men? It has long been established in Western culture that a man is expected to offer a woman an expensive gift (i.e. an engagement ring) and kneel before her to plead for a contractual arrangement (i.e. a marriage contract), just as one would have to do when standing before a king, demonstrating that feminists created chivalry so that men would worship at the feet of women.

To accomplish this, women must amass simps to do their bidding, and because women cannot obtain power through physical force, which is exclusive to men, they have no other choice but to manipulate men to gain power. In other words, women must lie to men, and men must also accept the lies of women for women to obtain the power they seek.

In God's creation, men must work to turn natural things (e.g. plants, earth, animals, etc) into things that are useful for our survival and comfort, and once they have done so, they have gathered resources of value, which gives them power. Although women can do this to some degree, they are weaker than men (1Pe 3:7), which prevents them from being able to produce the same amount and quality of resources from nature, so women are left to value themselves according to the things that men cannot obtain on their own, which is beauty and fertility.

The interesting thing about beauty and fertility is that these are natural-born traits, meaning that women did not have to go out into nature and obtain them through blood, sweat, and tears; they received them automatically at birth. Because of this, women have limited options to increase their value and power, whereas men have many more options to increase theirs.

Men more often listen to truth because truth helps them overcome situations and adapt to improve themselves, but because women cannot improve much on their value in the eyes of men, they prefer to not hear the truth, and instead become more interested in lies that tell them what they want to hear. This can be seen in many facets of society, but just in one example, when a woman asks a man if she looks fat in a dress, he often tries to avoid the question, or lies to her, because if he told her the truth, she would throw a fit of rage, and that is because women do not view such criticism as a means to work to increase her value.

Since women cannot do as much as men can do to increase their own value in the eyes of men, the only way they can obtain more value is by LOWERING the value of those around them, which is most often accomplished by lies and mainipulation.

The words to describe this process are 'derogation' and 'degredation':

derogation (n): the act or process of weakening, lessening, or taking away power or authority
derogation (n): to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt; to lower in character or quality; debase
(See 'derogation' & 'degrade', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In 2024 culture, it is common for women to do this by accusing men they do not like of being an "incel," which is slang for "involutarily celebate," or in other words, he is accused of being a low-value man who cannot attract women. When a man she does not like tells her a fact about her life that she does not like, she derogates him to convince others that he is worth less than they might perceive, so they will not listen to him, thereby lowering his social status/value, and increasing her own.

Women know that if they lie to manipulate men, they can get something for nothing, or in other words, since they cannot gather resources in equal efficiency to men, it is easier for them to manipulate men to get quick and easy resources and protection from them. However, this only works if there are simps who want to worship goddesses, and are willing to degrade other men to gain reputation among females.

I created this chart to help readers visualize how it works:
When a woman wants something, but a man is in her way of getting it, she will try to convince other men that she is a princess and the man is a dragon. This is a call to arms for simps to become the "white knight" to rescue her from the evil dragon (i.e. she calls men to fight other men) so she can get what she wants without being opposed by the man who barricades her from her goal.

Women must plead with men for rights and privileges because men are the givers and enforcers of women's right and privileges, so the only way for her to get what she wants is to call upon her simp army to fight for her. Without simps, woman cannot get what she wants, and so she pushes a false narrative that she is a goddess that "don't-need-no-man" and should be worshiped, while contradicting that narrative by portraying herself as "victim" of oppressive men so she can get what she wants without anyone opposing her with judgment that would make her responsible for her words and actions.

To give an example of how this works, let's look closer at the sad story of Jamie Faith, a resident of Oak Cliff, Texas, who was gunned down without warning outside of his home in October of 2020. He had just left the house with his wife, Jennifer, to walk their dog like the couple did every morning, when a man-in-hiding appeared, shot him seven times (three in the head, instantly killing him), grabbed Jennifer, attempted to steal her wedding ring, ran to his truck in fear of neighbors who were rushing in to help, and sped away from the scene.
(See United States Attorney's Office, "Jennifer Faith Sentence to Life for Murder for Hire in Husband's Death," Northern District of Texas, June 21, 2022, retrieved Mar 19, 2024, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/jennifer-faith-sentence-life-murder-hire-husband-s-death])

When the police arrived, Jennifer was sitting next to her husband's body, and she asked repeatedly why no one came to help? When I first read about this, I thought this was a rather strange thing to say because this question immediately aims blame at her neighbors, rather than the man who just killed her husband and assaulted her.

After investigators found the vehicle, the shooter was identified as Darrin Lopez, a recently-divorced, retired Special Forces officer, who lived in Tennesse, 650 miles away from the Faith's home. Lopez had no business in Oak Cliff, so the average person would find this odd to say the least, that is, until detectives took a closer look at the text messages on Jennifer's phone, and discovered that Darrin just so happened to be Jennifer's old high school boyfriend.

Seven months prior to the shooting, Jennifer had rekindled a long-distance love affair with Darrin, and aided him in the planning and murder of her husband Jamie, but it was not as simple as just asking Darrin to do the deed. Jennifer spent months of planning, injuring herself and taking photos of her injuries to send to Darrin while falsely accusing her husband of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as creating other fake eyewitnesses whose personas and accounts she made up (one of which was a fake account where she pretended to be her husband) to communicate with Darrin and convince him she was trapped in an abusive marriage.

Darrin finally reached a point where he legitimately believed that the police would not help Jennifer, and he was her only hope. So like a good little "white-knight" simp, manipulated by "damsel-in-distress," he set out to rescue his princess/goddess from the "evil" dragon:
"In February 2021, prosecutors charged Ms. Faith, 49, with obstruction of justice. In September 2021, they added a charge of use of interstate commerce in the commission of murder-for-hire, an offense that carries a potential death sentence. In return for her plea, prosecutors agreed to drop the obstruction charge and to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment. Ms. Faith pleaded guilty in February and was sentenced Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle, who also ordered her to pay $6,500 in restitution to her late husband's family to cover funeral expenses and a $250,000 fine."
-United States Attorney's Office, "Jennifer Faith Sentence to Life for Murder for Hire in Husband's Death," Northern District of Texas, June 21, 2022, retrieved Mar 19, 2024, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/jennifer-faith-sentence-life-murder-hire-husband-s-death]

Notice that the Texas Attorney's Office called it "murder-for-hire," and that is because it was more than just manipulation. Jennifer had paid Darrin to murder her husband, but of course, women manipulate to get something for nothing, and so Jennifer pulled on the heart-strings of those around her to donate to her "Support Jennifer Faith" GoFundMe page, and she used those funds to pay her contract killer.

Thus, we see that when a man is not giving the woman what she wants, she makes herself into a victim, cries "oppression," and gets a simp to be her "hero" by destroying her so-called "persecutor." She cannot fight her own battle, so she manipulates men to do it for her, putting all the risk on the simp who worships her, allowing her to keep herself hidden safely behind the scenes with no risk to her person or property.

This has long been a strategy of women, namely, to let the man do all the difficult and dangerous work, then manipulate him to be an avatar or puppet for her. Her fear is always that the man will realize she is manipulating him, and so to prevent that, the woman has to lie to the man, convince him of guilt, and through that guilt, make him feel ashamed, so he will think he owes her something for his "bad" behavior.

Men already provide women with all their needs and comforts, but women have pushed for more, demanding men give them many more things while providing nothing in return, so they can have enough to think they are free from needing men, even though men continue to do all the "icky" jobs of building roads, mining resources, cleaning sewage, and fighting fires. Men have had to pick up twice the responsibility for women, while at the same time she has stripped him of all the benefits of her nuturing, obedience, loyalty, and submission, which he had rightly earned through his hard work and sacrifice.

Some readers might be surprised to hear this information, how so many women were against suffrage, especially since schools and media of all kinds have perpetuated the idea that suffrage was a good thing, and that most women fought for it in a grassroots movement. The truth is that women's suffrage was a bad thing, the vast majority of women hated the idea, and it was a movement that was funded by high level interest groups, such as the Rockefellers, in order to begin the ideological process of getting women out of the homes and into the work force, for two main reasons: To double the amount of taxation collected on labor, and to get children into public education systems where the state can control what they learn.

In 2008, around the time of the media blackout on Ron Paul (who wanted to eliminate the Federal Reserve and Central Bank, and should have been President of the United States if the country were not so corrupted), Hollywood producer Aaron Russo made a documentary called Freedom to Fascism, which I still highly recommend to those who have not seen it because it explains the unconstitutionality of the income tax, and that, although the Supreme Court has ruled it unlawful, the IRS uses mafia bullying tactics to keep businesses afraid, so they will forcefully steal the wages of their employees and send it to the federal government. Soon after publishing this documentary, Russo died, but before his death, he was interviewed by Alex Jones, and he talked about his friendship with Nicholas Rockefeller, a graduate of Yale Law School and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Please keep in mind that Russo only had a casual friendship with Rockefeller, and it mostly concerned investments because Russo was running for governor of his state, but they had opposing philosophies on moral issues. He testified that Rockefeller met up with him one night, and told him about how the women's liberation movement was funded and orchestrated by the Rockefellers:
"He [Nicholas] was at the house one night. We were talking and he started laughing, and he said, 'Aaron, what do you think women's liberation was about?' And I said—I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point—and I said, 'I think it's about women having the right to work, get equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.' And he started to laugh, and he said, 'You're an idiot.' And I said, 'Why am I an idiot?' He said, 'Let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded women's lib. And we're the ones who got it in all the newspapers and on television, the Rockefeller Foundation.' He says, 'And you want to know why? There were two primary reasons. One reason was, we couldn't tax half the population before women's lib. And the second reason was now we get the kids in school at an early age. We can indoctrinate the kids how to think, so it breaks up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family, as the school, as the officials, as their family, not the parents teaching them.' So those were the two primary reasons for women's lib, which I thought, at that point, was a noble thing. When I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from when they created it, the thought of it, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture."
-Aaron Russo, "Alex Jones Interviews Aaron Russo (Full Length)," TruthTube1111, June 8, 2011, [https://youtu.be/N3NA17CCboA?si=HoRj65eeYwtwOaxQ&t=1745]

The Rockefellers then infiltrated colleges, and took over power in the school boards. That is a lengthy topic that is deserving of its own book, and I will not cover the details on that in this book because it would take too long, but if any readers want to learn more, read my article "The Cure for Cancer" here at creationliberty.com where I prove more details.
(The cure for cancer has been known for well over a century, and it is so simple and inexpensive, most people, even most physicans, refuse to hear about it because the indoctrination of media and brainwashing of medical institutions is so powerful.)

The Rockefellers' takeover of educational institutions, including libraries, allowed them the power to set who would oversee them. Over the past three generations, feminist organizations have been placed to gatekeep knowledge, using revisionist history books under a princple know as "Standpoint Theory," a term coined by feminist Sandra Harding.

Standpoint thoery is strictly a Marxist, feminist ideology, which asserts that knowledge is controlled by a patriarchy power structure, and that all knowledge should be interpreted by "marginalized groups." (And, of course, feminists are the arbiters that determine what is "marginalized.") Therefore, feminists took it upon themselves to rewrite a version of history that shined a favorable light on feminist ideology and protests, which have resulted in the average American believing that early 19th century women were all oppressed prisoners, feminist suffrage groups were "good," that their tiny minority demands were actually the demands of nearly all women across the country, and if you question these things, you will be ostricized from society.



Through this process of lies of manipulation, women have completely transformed our society into a gynocentric worship of women, where women have all the control, and men are forced to do all the hard labor like good little slaves to their female overlords. Women have taken control of our government because 55% of the votes cast in American elections are female:
"Over half of women (55%) who were eligible to vote cast ballots in the 2018 midterms in November, as did 51.8% of men, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau."
-Pew Research Center, "In year of record midterm turnout, women continued to vote at higher rates than men," May 3, 2019, retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/03/in-year-of-record-midterm-turnout-women-continued-to-vote-at-higher-rates-than-men/]

Women have taken over our medical institutions because the majority of medical students are now female:
"The AAMC's annual report on medical school enrollment showed that 2019 marked the first time that the majority of U.S. medical school students (50.5%) were women."
-Patrick Boyle, "Nation's physician workforce evolves: more women, a bit older, and toward different specialties," Association of American Medical Colleges, Feb 2, 2021, retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [https://www.aamc.org/news/nation-s-physician-workforce-evolves-more-women-bit-older-and-toward-different-specialties]

Women have taken over our educational institutions because the majority are women, and have been since the 1880s:
"Women made up the majority of public school teachers (77 percent) and public school principals (54 percent) in 2017-18."
-National Center for Education Statistics, "Women's Equality Day: The Gender Wage Gap Continues," Aug 26, 2022, retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/2022/08/26/default]

Women are the majority of college enrollments and graduates:
"According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, in the fall of 2022, about 8.3 million women were undergraduate college students, versus 6.1 million men. Women also outnumbered men in graduate programs — 1.8 million versus 1.1 million."
-Lyss Welding, "Women in Higher Education: 5 Key Facts and Statistics," Best Colleges, Apr 6, 2023, retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/women-in-higher-education-facts-statistics/]

Women have begun to take over law practices:
"Women have accounted for many more in recent years, with females making up 50.31% of associates in U.S. law firms in 2023. This is unsurprising as women now make up a larger percentage of new law school graduates looking for work."
-Christy Bieber, "Women In Law Statistics 2024," retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/women-in-law-statistics/]

As we will learn later in this book, women have taken complete control of divorce and family court to the point that men are often advised by lawyers NOT to fight to defend themselves because it is unlikely that they will win, simply on the basis that they are male. Women get huge advantages in hiring practice because of employment law, and even when women commit the same crimes as men, they are often given lesser sentences than men, and released earlier from prison for "good behavior."

Although women have great privilege in society while men are left to suffer, feminists deceive men to believe the opposite, that men have all the privilege while women are left to suffer. I hope to dispel the illusion, so both men and women can have their eyes opened to the reality that they see everyday...



 

Best-selling author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Will was blocked from speaking at certain universities, and I was curious as to what horrifying message was he giving that would cause such a backlash. He simply stated that the U.S. government's involvment in subsidizing indoctrination in academic institutions is getting out of control:
"Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. [very painful] They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous [omnipresent, everywhere all at the same time] ('micro-aggressions,' often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers [grants] privileges, victims proliferate. [grow rapidly] And academia's progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia's turn to be broken to government's saddle."
-George Will, "Colleges become the victims of progressivism," Washington Post, June 6, 2014, retrieved Mar 6, 2024, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html]

In other words, Will explained that the federal government is funding universities that will spread its political messaging (which includes feminism, among other things), and added that the colleges themselves are finding the process difficult to accept. He points out that the political term "micro-aggressions" (which is nothing more than imaginary assault) is pushing a victimization ideology, and because the federal government subsidizes such education, it then incentivizes victimhood, which encourages people to become victims.

victim (n): a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency
(See 'victim', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

When someone is the victim of a real crime, and restitution for that crime is sought, someone has to dish out punishment to the criminal, and this is most often done by government courts through law enforcement. Therefore, this ideology of victimhood creates an automatic reliance on government, to give government more power, and when people come forward as the "victims" of an imaginary "crimes," then the bad actors of government use the wailing of fake victims in the media to create a fake problem, and then they create a "solution" that always involves taking away power and resources from the People, and giving it to government.

Because of this, feminism has always been, and always will be, a driving force for socialism and communism. Unless men are educated on the dangers of feminism's drive for governing control of their resources, and actively fight against it, women will use the government to destroy entire nations.

The United States government has no business providing welfare (medicare, education, housing, etc) because not only is that NOT the job of a government (i.e. the duty of government is to protect the nation and punish evildoers, Rom 13:3-4), the preamble to our United States Constitution says the government should only PROMOTE (i.e. encourage) the general welfare, NOT provide for it:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-Constitution of the United States, Constitution Annotated, retrieved Mar 6, 2023, [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/]

The provision of welfare is called subsidy:

subsidy (n): a direct financial aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like
(See 'subsidy', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

If someone has a need, then they should plead with family, friends, neighbors, churches, and charities for help, but they have no business going to the government, to turn it into a weapon of oppression against hardworking citizens because that government will only steal from the innocent (via taxation) to give to the lazy, then stealing more to pay officials to steal it, then stealing more to pay accountants to manage what they stole. The issue that George Will was raising is that governments are now subsidizing "victimhood," making it profitable for people to gain special benefits (i.e. funding, preferencial hiring, etc) by claiming to be a victim when there was no crime.

In a real criminal case, when there is clearly a victim who suffered damage to his person or property, which was the result of examining evidence to PROVE criminal action, courts often grant a right of restitution to the victim, and that restitution is a privilege.

privilege (n): a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most
(See 'privilege', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Thus, in the feminist worldview, women consider themselves to be "victims" simply for being born female, and therefore, they believe that they are due special privileges because of their so-called "oppressed" status in life. Furthermore, feminists claim that men have "male privilege" which allows them to use some sort of automatic masculine standing to gain special societal benefits that women do not receive.

Feminist yowl about this so-called "male privilege," but it is (and always has been) nothing more than media propaganda. As we learned in chapter one, feminists claim that we live under an "evil patriarchy," which they believe is a society designed to only benefit men at the expense of women.

A privileged person gets other people to lift and carry their burdens for them, and so to argue for "male privilege," feminists must claim that men do not have to carry their own burdens, and instead, they pass their burdens onto women, and so women must suffer the responsibilities of mens' duties. To initially address the absurdity of male privilege, please consider the following image I made comparing men and women during World War I.


The reason those feminists had the privilege to peacefully march down streets holding their signs without anyone attacking them is because their male counterparts were in a foreign country taking bullets and bleeding out on the battlefield. Others made it home, but many of them with life-long physical injuries and mental damage that women had the privilege to never suffer.

suffrage (n): a vote given in favor of a proposed measure, candidate, or the like
(See 'suffrage', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 20, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

If you look up old photos of the feminist sufferage movement, you will never find a sign that said: "Give women the right to suffer and die on the battlefield!" What strange phenomenon kept women from realizing that they were being "oppressed" from having the great honor of being sent far away from their homes and families to have their limbs blown off on a battlefield? It was not suffering that feminists wanted to gain from suffrage, but rather, they just wanted control of society so they can vote to dish out more suffering to all those who are not women.

The fact is that women have always had the right to suffer and die on the battlefield if they wanted to, but women never wanted to do that, just as men most did not want it either. Most men who have gone to war (all throughout history) have been FORCED to do so under threat of torture and death. Women do not have the physical and mental capability to perform at the same level as men in nearly all aspects of life, but most especially on the battlefield, and because of the benevolence of men, women have always been given the great privilege to stay home in safety with their families.

When a young man turns 17, he is told that the following year, he will have to register with the government in the event that they call all able-bodied men to war, that he might have to part from his family and friends against his will, and suffer and die on the battlefield, and if he does not register, he could face up to $250,000 in fines and fives years in prison. However, young ladies never have to worry about such things. Please do not misunderstand because I do not want women to register for the draft, but I point this out because I want females to understand that, the next time you think to whine and complain, and to raise your voice against your fathers, brothers, and husbands, you need to check your privilege.
(See Robert Longley, "Register for the Draft: It Is Still the Law," About News, July 4, 2016, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.thoughtco.com/register-for-the-draft-3321313])

When our self-serving governments decide to create war (which is almost always orchestrated by the Central Bankers), they force the nation's citizens to enlist, and thus, somebody has to go fight. Men love their women so much, they do not want females to endure heatstroke, frostbite, sweat, strain, stress, bloodshed, destruction, and death of war, and so men sacrifice themselves so their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and sweethearts will not have to suffer such horrible things.

Feminists are liars and hypocrites because if they really wanted the "equality" they preach so much, then they should personally go sign up for the draft of their own choice, but you will almost never see them do it. In the 1970s, feminists tried to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have required all women to register for the draft, and this was a direct feminist attack against housewives and homemakers, but by the grace of God, their efforts were rejected by Congress because men do not send their little girls to fight their battles for them, and they do not want their wives, sisters, daughters, and sweethearts forced into combat.

However, I am sad to report that the woke, leftist morons in our government pushed the feminist agenda and allowed women on the front lines of military combat in December of 2015. Prior to that time, women were not allowed on the battlefield, and I would strongly argue that despite this ridiculous change of policy, women still have no business being on the front lines because they are physically and mentally inferior in war conditions.
(See Bill Chappell, "Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Live Ground Combat Positions," National Public Radio, Dec 3, 2015, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/03/458319524/pentagon-will-allow-women-in-frontline-ground-combat-positions])

Men have a place, and women have a place. Men should not barge into women's spaces, and women should not barge into men's spaces.

Many military personnel are against women being put on the front lines because they become a liability, and there are a lot of former and current military personnel, consisting of both men and women, who do not like this new policy. The reasons for this are many, but for instance, military personnel carry between 60-100lbs of combat gear, which is excessively more difficult for a woman to carry than a man, especially when treking miles of rough terrain over many days, and additionally, if a man is wounded on the battlefield, he would rather rely on another man who can drag/carry his 200-pound body, than to trust a woman, who would almost certainly have to call for help to do the same thing.

That being said, the interesting thing about the Pentagon's change in policy is that women have a CHOICE to serve on the front lines. This means that women do not have to go if they do not want to, but men do not have the same choice because it is a FEMALE privilege.

Also in 2015, news outlets were quick to report that two women had passed the Army's Elite Ranger School, which is said to be one of the most difficult military courses in the world. The leftists took great pride in this seemingly glorious achievement, finally proving that women could do everything a man could do. However, they were not quick to mention what PEOPLE Magazine found when their journalists investigated deeper:
"But whereas men consistently were held to the strict standards outlined in the Ranger School's Standing Operating Procedures handbook sources say, the women were allowed lighter duties and exceptions to policy."
-Susan Keating, "Was It Fixed? Army General Told Subordinates: 'A Woman Will Graduate Ranger School,' Sources Say," PEOPLE, Sept 25, 2015, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://people.com/celebrity/female-rangers-were-given-special-treatment-sources-say/]

There is a good reason why no woman in the world has ever completed Ranger training. This is not rocket science; it is just basic physics. Women cannot match the male-level physical capability to pass the course, and so if women want to pass, they must be given FEMALE privileges.

The Daily Mail also reported:
"However, while the men were given a strict pass-no pass standard to meet, the sources claim that the women were allowed to attempt the course as many times as they liked."
-The Daily Mail, "First women to pass Ranger School were given extra training and lowered benchmarks after General vowed 'at least one of them will pass', report claims," Sept 25, 2015, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249690/First-women-pass-Ranger-School-given-extra-training-lowered-benchmarks-general-vowed-one-pass-sources-claim.html]

In other words, the Ranger school requires is simply pass/fail, which means you either complete everything, or you do not, and if you do not pass, then you cannot take the test again without going through the entire training course again. However, they gave women FEMALE privilege to take the test as many times as they liked until they could "pass" (with lowered standards), and the Army could announce their new "female rangers" for political clout.

This does not only apply to high-end categories. Even physical requirements for basic training have been lowered for women, as we can see from the Army Basic Training Physical Fitness Test: (See Stew Smith, "Army Basic Training PFT," Military.com, July 2, 2014, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft])

The number of sit-ups is the same because men and women have similar core muscles, and the ratio of core muscles matches their upper body weight, however, women are given fewer push-ups becaue they have less upper-body strength, and they are permitted longer time to run the same distance because they have weaker and shorter legs than men. This is called FEMALE privilege, and it does NOT make our military stronger.

I laughed to myself when I thought about the 1970s ERA that, at the beheast of brainless feminists, would have required the government to have NO distinction whatsoever between men and women in ANY state institution, including the military. It would have resulted in either having all standards lowered for both men and women (which would weaken our military), or it would have prevented most women from joining because almost none of them could have passed the rigorous prerequisites to become a soldier.

Even if women could somehow match the physical strength of men, they do not have the same drive and mental fortitude that men have in combat. However, the problem is much more complicated because of the natural interactions between men and women that cause conflict in military settings.

Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, and she explains why women in combat units is a terrible idea:
"[T]he first [of three problems] is that every sentient adult knows what happens when you mix healthy young men and women together in small groups for extended periods of time. Just look at any workplace. Couples form. At some point, how couples interact — sexually, emotionally, happily and/or unhappily — makes life uncomfortable for those around them. Factor in intense, intimate conditions and you can forget about adults being able to stay professional 24/7. Object lesson for anyone who disagrees: General Petraeus."
-Anna Simons, "Here's Why Women In Combat Units is a Bad Idea," War on the Rocks, Nov 18, 2014, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/]

David Patraeus is a retired general who resigned from his position as director of the CIA over an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a former military officer. Broadwell was given preferential treatment by Patraeus, and should be noted that Broadwell is the co-founder of the Think Broader Foundation, which is ironically a media consulting firm focusing on addressing gender bias in society.

Simons continues:
"Problem number two: Those who favor lifting the combat exclusion ban engage in a clever sleight of hand whenever they equate women serving in combat with women serving in combat units... battles are like exclamation points. They punctuate long stretches when there are no firefights. Spend time around soldiers when they are coming down from adrenaline highs, or are depressed or upset; they are prone to all sorts of temptations.
Problem number three involves a different elision [merging things]... There is no clearer way to put it than this: Heterosexual men like women. They also compete for their attention... no female has to leave a bar alone if she doesn't want to, whereas at 'last call' lots of men do. Cast back through history or just look cross-culturally: Men's abiding interest in women (and women's interest in having men be interested) creates limitless potential for friction. Is this really what we want to inflict on combat units?"
-Anna Simons, "Here's Why Women In Combat Units is a Bad Idea," War on the Rocks, Nov 18, 2014, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea]

As I said before, there are many current and former military members who agree with what Simons just said, not only because of its objective truth, but because they have seen it personally. There are very good reasons why many groups and organizations around the world have a separation of men and women into two categories, and it is not only because of physical limitations, but also because the social interactions between the two sexes can cause extreme conflict.

However, feminists, whether on purpose or because of idiocy, pushed for females to enter male-only spaces, and this was only possible because there is a female majority voting base in the U.S., along with a multitude of gynocentric simps running our government. As I mentioned in chapter one, more female voters have participated in voting than male voters, and it has been this way since the 1980s:
"In 2012, the difference in turnout was nearly 4 percentage points (63.7 percent of ladies voted vs. 59.8 percent of gents). The disparity was more than twice as large if you look just at those who have never been married."
-Catherine Rampell, "Why women are far more likely to vote than men," The Washington Post, July 17, 2014, retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-why-women-are-far-more-likely-to-vote-then-men/2014/07/17/b4658192-0de8-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html]

So as of 2024, women have been the majority of voters for over 40 years, so if they make up the majority of the decisions for who gets elected, how are we in a "patriarchal" society of "male privilege?" If anyone is to be blamed for a patriarchy, then the blame would fall squarely on the female majority electing officials who "oppress" women, but the fact is that women have been voting for politicians who give women all the advantages.

CDC studies found that there is a 4.8 year difference between the life expectancy of men compared to women. Women in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 81.2 years, and men have a life expectancy of 76.4 years, meaning that women live longer than men, which is why the phrase "he survived by his wife" is seen so much in obituraries.
(See Larry Copeland, "Life expectancy in the USA hits a record high," USA Today, Oct 9, 2014, retrieved Sept 8, 2016, [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/08/us-life-expectancy-hits-record-high/16874039/])

Men often die earlier because their bodies have been broken down from so many years of working high stress jobs, especially those which require a lot of physical strain. Women more often work easier jobs that require less stress, which gives them a longer life expectancy, which is properly called "female privilege" because they can work easier jobs only because men take on all the harder jobs.

So what does this have to do with women voting, politics, and government regulations that favor men rather than women? The life expectancy takes on a whole different meaning when we look at Social Security.

(See Social Security Administration, "Your full retirement age is 66," retrieved Sept 8, 2016, [https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943.html])

Social Security is money that the government takes out of the average American citizen's paycheck, and then sends back to them in payments during their retirement. There are many things about Social Security that are evil and unconstitutional (i.e. it is essentially a money-laundering scheme that is used to stall the Central Bank's inflation bubble), but I will not cover that because it is not the focus of this book. Because the average woman lives longer than the average man, the average woman gets more money and benefits than men do because, when a man dies, he no longer receives benefits, but the woman continues to receive the benefits of his hard work.

Remember, a privilege is a benefit enjoyed by one person over another. Therefore, this is FEMALE privilege that enjoyed by women at the expense of men.

Of course, I can already hear the whining feminists complain that women pay into Social Security too, which is true, but men pay FAR more into it than women, even though women get more of it than men. This is because, on average, men work more overall hours than women (as we will learn more about in chapter five), which forces them to pay more into the Social Security scam.

According to the National Academy of Social Insurance, women make up 56% of the beneficiaries of Social Security, while men only make up 44% (even though men pay more into it), and because women more often outlive men, women rely heavily on their husband's Social Security. Again, this results in which women paying less into the system and receiving more out of it, which is called FEMALE privilege, and we have not seen one ounce of effort from feminists to fix this horrible "inequality."
(See National Academy of Social Insurance, "Women's Stake in Social Security,' retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/womens-stake-in-social-security/])

One would think that if we lived under an "oppressive patriarchy," men would fix these numbers to benefit men far over women. However, with each passing year, this benefits women far more than it benefits men because feminists are a pack of vicious, whining harpies who lie to men to get something for nothing.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) 2014 analysis, both men and women get retirement benefits. The following chart shows that 80% of men received retired worker benefits, meaning that they paid into the system and got their retirement, but only 63% of women worked enough to receive it.


The reason women do not pay as much into something they end up getting more benefits from is because their elected politicians (i.e. the patriarchy) made it that way. Women are allowed to file under other special circumstances that most men cannot get, like being a widow, parent, and/or spouse of a retired or disabled worker, and the SSA points out that:
"Less than 0.5 percent of men received benefits as survivors (widowers or fathers) or as spouses of retired and disabled workers."
-Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, "Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2014," Social Security Administration, September, 2014, SSA Publication No. 13-11785, retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2014/fast_facts14.pdf]

According to SSA records, women are awarded benefits as widows (14%) over men (0.5%), and women are awarded benefits as spouses of retirees (8%) over men (0.5%), which means that women are receiving the majority of the benefits, while paying for the minority of the benefits. Again, a privileged person is someone who gets others to carry their burdens for them, so how is it possible that women are getting more and paying less if our society has so much "male privilege?"

I am firmly against the concept of tax-funded, government controlled Medicare for many reasons I will not have room to discuss in this book (i.e. it is unbiblical, unconstitutional, and hurts more people than it helps), but we have it in the USA, so let's look at the facts. Remember that we have already established that women live, on average, about 5 years longer than men, and that fact alone demonstrates that women will spend more in Medicare costs than men on average.

In 2015, the National Women's Law Center reported:
"Women constitute more than half of the individuals with Medicare... Because women, on average, are poorer, live longer and have more health care needs than men, Medicare (sometimes combined with Medicaid) potentially plays a greater role for them in preventing illness and destitution... Women made up 56% of individuals with Medicare in 2010. Women make up an even larger portion of the oldest Medicare beneficiaries. Women over 80 made up 62% of individuals with Medicare in 2010."
-National Women's Law Center, "The Importance of Medicare for Women," retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/the_importance_of_medicare_for_women_factsheet_08-29-12.pdf]

Obviously, this information is coming from a law center for women, but there is not one of concern for men in that document, even though men (on average) work longer hours and more of their lives to pay into the Medicare system and get substantially less from it than women do. This shows us that women have NO concern about WHERE the money is coming from because they are too busy trying to figure out how women can get more of it.

We can learn more details from The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMMS):
"Per capita spending for working-age adult females in 2012 ($7,430) was 28 percent higher than male per capita spending ($5,822). Females between ages 19-44 spent 66 percent more per capita in 2012 than did males in the same age-group. The significant difference in spending is largely associated with the costs for maternity care, and females spending over 46 percent more than males on retail prescription-drugs."
-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "U.S. Personal Health Care Spending By Age and Gender," retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [http://go.cms.gov/2cqJLKw]

As a side note, another reason for women spending more than men is because boys are disciplined from a young age to be tougher than girls. When a girl gets injured, she is immediately given large amounts of help, rest, and care, but when a boy gets injured, he is typically told to "walk it off," as if walking has some sort of secret healing power, and seeking aid is typically seen as a sign of weakness among males.

Please do not misunderstand because I believe it is a good thing that boys are disciplined to be tougher. Men have a harder life than women, and that requires thick skin, so it is only natural that boys have to learn things that strengthen them much more than girls do, but I am pointing this out to teach women to check their privilege because, even though it looks like boys do not feel pain like girls do, boys are only trained to put aside their emotions and work past the pain, which is vital for their survival and leadership skills.

To give an example of the disproportionate way boys are treated, when I was 14, I was running in track and field during practice one day in high school, and when handing off a relay stick to another runner, I tripped and fell, landing chin first on the ground, ripping up my chin and arms to the point that I had blood running down my shirt and I had to have stitches that afternoon. (I still have the scar on the bottom of my chin to this day.) As soon as I fell, I laid their for a moment, and a girl walked up to me and asked if I was okay. Even though my ears were ringing and I could barely hear what she said, I said I was okay because to say otherwise would show weakness, which was frowned upon for boys. I was told to go inside to get cleaned up without anyone offering to help me, and I did not make it to the door before I started to get dizzy and fall down. I did not know at the time that my body was going into shock. It was only at that point, when blood was running down my neck and arms that someone came to give me assistance. They carried me into the medical bay, slapping me in the face to keep me awake, and sprayed some disinfectant on my open, bleeding wounds, which burned terribly, causing me to tear up, which resulted in being made fun of by the girls watching from the sidelines because I was "crying," which is worthy of their mocking because weak boys are not worthy of being treated as real people in our society.

In that situation, were things handled the way they should have been? Absolutely not. However, although I did not like it at the time, I am now glad it happened to me because, later in life, it gave me a lot perspective and helped to strengthen me. I just hope that example will help some female readers understand just a little of what boys have to go through.

So because girls are not toughened as much as boys are, girls tend to whine and cry more when they are upset by essentially anything. This philosophy in women does not disappear with age, and even when they are old, they still whine and complain more than men because they know it is effective, which is reflected in the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," meaning that those who whine the loudest typically get the most attention.

The Social Security Administration statistics from 2010 has a wide variety of tax records beyond those we have covered so far, and those I saw showed that men paid far more into the system than women. For example, the report showed that men are paying 59.3% of OASDI (Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance) Social Security taxes, while women are only paying 40.7%, and as we saw earlier, men are only getting about 44% of that money, while women are getting 56% on average. (i.e. Women pay less and get more.) The same document showed that men are paying 62.7% of Hospital Insurance taxes for Medicare, while women are only paying 37.3%, and men are only getting 44% of that money, while women are getting 56% on average.

(See Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, "Earnings and Employment Data for Workers Covered Under Social Security and Medicare, by State and County," Social Security Administration, No. 13-11784, May, 2014, retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/eedata_sc/2011/eedata_sc11.pdf])

It seems to me that if the feminists were correct in their argument that we live in a patriarchy that oppresses women and only gives men privileges, then men must be really stupid to keep robbing themselves of money and giving it to women. If we built a society on male privilege, we should see the opposite of these statistics, meaning that women would be paying more and getting less, while men profited on the hard work of women.

The vast majority of homeless people are men, not women, which is odd if you believe the feminist narrative. Should we not see more homeless females under such a vicious patriarchy?

Of course, there are some people who choose to be homeless because they like the lifestyle, but for the majority of homeless people, they do not choose that life. Most men and most women do not choose to be homeless, but there are FAR more homeless men because we live in a FEMALE privilege society that affords women more opportunities because, in most cases, people take more pity on homeless women than they do homeless men.

I challege readers to go into the Scriptures and look at all the instances where there were poor and needy people begging at the gates and in the streets. You will find that the great majority of those in need were men because women have always been a privileged, protected class of citizens.

And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
-John 5:5-7

And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
-Acts 3:2-8

Jesus and His apostles had compassion for the poor and needy, but most of them were men, and still today, in many cases, it is only Christians who take pity on the poor and needy men. Although feminists often spew a false narrative that they want "equal rights" for all, never in my life have I seen any feminist, individual or group, make any effort to feed and care for the poor and needy men.

The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) provided the following statistics to Congress in 2015: "Most people experiencing homelessness are men. The sheltered population is composed of more women (45%) than the unsheltered population (29%)."
-U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress," November, 2015, p.8-9, retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf]

These numbers are far more interesting if you consider that many more homeless people are men than women because when they analyzed the "sheltered" (i.e. those receiving assistance from a charitable organization) versus "unsheltered," they found that even though women make up a minority of homeless people, they are FAR more likely to get assistance. Men make up almost two-thirds of homeless people, and only about half of them get shelter, while women are only about one-third of homeless people, but over 70% of them get shelter, and so when women get more opportunities and advantages over men, we call that FEMALE privilege.

The AHAR found that of the 47,725 homeless veterans they recorded, over 90% were men, and although we need to keep in mind that men make up the majority of the military, homelessness is still a major problem for men because there are very few men's shelters in comparison to women's shelters. What's more amazing is that feminists constantly claim that it is "white" male privilege, but the 2015 report stated that the majority of homeless people (49%) are white (compared to various other ethnicities), and the majority (57%) of the unsheltered population (i.e. those getting no help) are white, which means it is the white male that is suffering the most right now in the U.S. in terms of homelessness.
(See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress," November, 2015, p. 1 & 9, retrieved Mar 21, 2024, [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf])


The first thing that stood out to me when I opened the AHAR was the details of the cover photos, and I had to laugh at the absurdity of it because it featured mostly WOMEN, not men. In their 2022 report, they did the same thing, and subsequent photos throughout the AHAR were mostly women, and the numbers were almost the same. (Male homelessness increased, but male unsheltered homelessness decreased ever-so-slightly, only because they shifted that small percentage to "transgender" identifying males, and rolling your eyes at that is the correct response.) Even though men are the ones suffering the most, they are more apt to advertise women because homeless females garner sympathy, whereas homeless males often do not, and we call that FEMALE privilege.
(See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "The 2022 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress," December, 2022, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf])

As a side note, the 2022 report also showed that the more conservative, Republican policies in a state, the lower the homelessness rate. However, the more liberal, Democrat policies in the state, the homelessness was up to five times higher than conservative states.

Men also suffer much more than women when it comes to homicide, which categorizes many types of crimes surrounding death, including (but not limited to) murder, manslaughter, self-defense, and war casualties. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported:
"In 2011, the murder rate for males was 7.4 homicides per 100,000 males... The murder rate for females in 2011 was 2.0 homicides per 100,000 females... From 2002 to 2011, the homicide rate among males declined by 16%, while the rate for females decreased by 20%."
-U.S. Department of Justice, "Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement," Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243035, December, 2013, retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf]

In 2011, there were 14,610 reported homicides in the U.S., and of those, 11,370 were male, while only 3,240 were female, which means that odds of being murdered in the U.S. are 3.6 times higher for men than women. One of the reasons for this is because more men are homeless, which puts them on the street, and that leaves them more vulnerable to being killed. Thus, it is safer for a woman to walk down the street than it is for a man, and that is called FEMALE privilege.

And since we're talking about death, let's talk about suicide, a magic internet word in 2024 that gets you banned from video streaming platforms in violation of Americans' First Amendment protected freedom of speech. There are varying factors for why people commit suicide, but in the U.S., men make up 80% of suicide cases, despite the fact that they make up less than half of the population.
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Suicide: Facts at a Glance," 2015, retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/34181])

In 2013, there were a total of 41,149 suicides reported, which means that, on average, 90 men in the U.S. kill themselves every day. The report also stated that suicide is the 7th leading cause of death for men, and 14th leading cause of death for women, which is confusing for those that believe in the feminist narrative because, in a world where men are supposed to be so privileged, and things are supposed to be just so great for men all the time, why is the suicide rate so much higher for men?

A 2021-2022 report showed that the suicide rate for males was four times higher than that of females: -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Suicide Data and Statistics," retrieved Mar 22, 2024, [https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html] There are many reasons why the suicide rate of men is so high, and one of the primary reasons is because of the massive oppression they suffer in family court. Women get a huge, unfair advantage in family and divorce court, and we will cover more on that in the next chapter.

Another unfair advantage that women get is in criminal sentencing. A study by the University of Michigan Law School in 2012 showed a ridiculously wide gap between men and women in court punishments and law enforcement interactions:
"This study finds dramatic unexplained gender gaps in federal criminal cases. Conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables, men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do. Women are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. There are large unexplained gaps across the sentence distribution, and across a wide variety of specifications, subsamples, and estimation strategies. The data cannot disentangle all possible causes of these gaps, but they do suggest that certain factors (such as childcare and offense roles) are partial but not complete explanations, even combined."
-Sonja B. Starr, "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," University of Michigan Law School, Aug 29, 2012, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current]

Please keep in mind that this study analyzed both men and women in the same district court, same criminal history, and same level of offense. The study found that men suffered (on average) 60% more arrests, longer sentencing (i.e. prison, house arrest, community service, etc), and other fines and charges for the same crimes.

Although it is common for feminists to suggest motherhood as an excuse, the author also pointed out that factors such as childcare or roles in the offense were not nearly substantial enough to explain the gap in sentencing. Feminists will also claim that women are more agreeable while men are more hostile, which they believe explains the gap, but the study said that, based on the evidence, there was "at best, limited support for that theory."

Feminists also claim that women suffer more mental problems, so are naturally perceived to have less moral responsibility. This leaves us with the conclusion that women are lunatics incapable of standing on moral principle and cannot be trusted, but either way, it is still an extreme bias of FEMALE privilege.

On the flip side of the criminals, victims of murder are far more often men than women. The following is from a 2010 FBI report:
"Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male."
-Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Expanded Homicide Data," U.S. Department of Justice, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain]

The FBI reported that 90.3% of murder offenders were also male, which means most murder is male-on-male crime. This leaves 9.7% of women who commit murders, which feminists would typically take as a positive point to defend their position (i.e. they claim that men are the cause of all suffering and crime), but that is nonsensical because if women are not the primary target for murder, then a man is much more likely to get killed walking down the street than a woman, or in other words, it is safer for a woman to walk down the street than it is for a man, which is another aspect of FEMALE privilege.

In addition to that, there is another anomaly:
"In general, both the death sentencing rate and the death row population remain very small for women in comparison to that for men. Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 571 documented instances as of 12/31/2012, beginning with the first in 1632. These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total of confirmed executions in the United States since 1608. Sixteen female offenders have been executed since 1976."
-Death Penalty Information Center, "Women and the Death Penalty," retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/women#facts]

Since about 10% of women commit murders, the rate of execution of women should also be roughly 10% (give or take a few points), but that number is far below what we should expect on average. Once again, this means men are being sentenced more harshly than women for the same crime because of FEMALE privilege.

Women are also getting a lot of advantage in college institutions, and in 2012, college enrollment across the U.S. added up to almost 21 million students; 9 million male versus 12 million female. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43% of college students are men and 57% are women, but we can deduce a whole lot more meaning if we investigate why this is happening today.
(See National Center for Education Statistics, "Historical summary of faculty, enrollment, degrees, and finances in degree-granting postsecondary institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 throughout 2011-12," retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_301.20.asp?current=yes])

A 2013 University of Georgia article gives us more detail:
"Men's rate of college going has slowed in recent years whereas women's has not, but if you roll the story back far enough, to the 60s and 70s, women were going to college in much fewer numbers. It's at a point now where you've got women earning upward of 60 percent of the bachelors' degrees awarded every year."
-Matt Weeks, "New UGA research helps explain why girls do better in school," UGA Today, Jan 2, 2013, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://news.uga.edu/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/]

Of course, we know the feminist tropes, that women won their freedom to go to college (as if women could not do it prior to the mid 20th century), and now they do so much better than men because women are smarter than men. However, an analysis of financial benefits reveals a more logical reason for the shift towards more female students:
"Student loans provide more help to women than they do for men in encouraging graduation from college, a new nationwide study reveals. Findings showed that, on average, taking out loans actually makes graduation more likely for all students. But at a certain point — which is about $2,000 lower for men than for women — debt has diminishing returns and becomes less effective at boosting chances of graduation... For men, debt started having diminishing returns on the probability of graduation at a lower level ($12,711) than for women ($14,682)."
-Ohio State University, "Student loans help women more than men in reaching graduation," Science Daily, Feb 21, 2013, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130221194243.htm]

As someone who used to live next door to left-leaning Ohio State University (OSU), I can tell you there is most often biased propaganda coming from their faculty and reports, but that being said, they claim the reason for this increase in female loan opportunities is because men drop out sooner than women, and they claim this is because women have to get a degree to be successful and earn as much money as a man. As I said, this is propaganda, and later, in the chapter called "The Illusion of a Wage Gap," we will find out how the fake legacy news media has influenced people into believing a lie.

Elizabeth Holmes was the youngest self-made female billionaire, at least until she was prosecuted for fraud in 2022 (because her entire company was based on a lie), sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2023, and fined $452 million to be paid to her victims, but prior to that time, she dropped out of Stanford during her second year to start a business. Putting aside the fraud, the reason I point this out is to demonstrate that women can do just as much as men in business and industry if they dedicate themselves and work hard, but they often choose not to because it is a lot more stress than women can typically take, and unlike feminists who just sit around all day whining that the government (i.e. men) should give women more privilege beyond what they already have, and more money than they actually earn.
(See United States Attorney's Office, "Elizabeth Holmes Sentenced To More Than 11 Years For Defrauding Theranos Investors Of Hundreds Of Millions," Nov 18, 2022, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/elizabeth-holmes-sentenced-more-11-years-defrauding-theranos-investors-hundreds])

Before I continue on this topic, I want to make the disclaimer that Christians (and Americans in general) should not be getting in debt in the first place if you can avoid it. Interest on debt is called "usury" in Scripture, and it is often frowned upon, meaning that it is not a good idea to take on college loan debt.

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
-Deuteronomy 23:19

Another fact that I want readers to understand is that, in most cases, it has always been much easier to get a better job with at least six months of experience (perhaps through an internship) than with a college degree because people with a college degree still have to be trained and gain work experience to be useful to a company, which costs the company money in the long term. Men generally understand this better than women do because men more often adapt themselves to what is financially beneficial, and so are more willing to drop out of college to make more money, whereas women tend to prefer more high status things like college certificates, which make women appear to be more useful than they are.

When I first entered the college scene as a poor white male, I searched for those "male privilege" opportunities I had heard so much about from the media and other feminist propaganda I learned at home, school, and church buildings, but I was surprised and disappointed to find that all the grants and special programs rejected me. For many years I was told that all I had to do was flash my "male privilege" card to get whatever I wanted, but sadly, I never received mine in the mail. Blacks, latinos, and women had access to all the helpful programs and grants that denied me because I was an average white male with average grades and no special skills, and I ended up working a cash register at a fast food chain to barely make ends meet.

If we look at the stats from 100 years ago, very few women persued college degrees, and despite what the mainstream media keeps preaching to us, there is little evidence that this was due to the oppression of a patriarchy keeping women down. Women have long been given privileged status for their beauty and ability to bear children, and the fact that they had to raise their children, in addition to women being overall weaker than men, it automatically made women more suited for keeping the home (which is a great value to men), but over the past century, men invented many labor-saving devices (e.g. electricity, plumbing, toasters, refrigerators, telephones, washing machines, etc), so the overall work load of women had significantly decreased (due to the hard work and benevolence of men), and this allowed them the freedom of choice to persue other goals.

Although raging feminists whine that they did not have the same opportunity as men to go to college (because they have some weird, deep-seeded desire to leave the home and become a wage slave like men have to do), the late Phyllis Schlafly, a wife and mother of six children, worked to get her law degree just after the Second World War: "Don't let anybody tell you that opportunities for education for women only started when the feminists came along because I was getting my degree at the Harvard graduate school in 1945, long before all these feminists were born, and competed with all the guys; had no problem."
(See Phyllis Schlafly, "Political Activist Phyllis Schlafly Speaks to Citadel Cadets," Apr 17, 2012, retrieved Sept 14, 2016, [https://youtu.be/ZqBfy5DpwdE?si=xajHwobd9msH4iEQ&t=729])

Phyllis "had no problem" competing against the men in college "long before all these feminists were born," and there were no groups of men standing outside colleges with lazily made signs protesting women entering university education. Rather than whine about getting more privileges from men, Schlafly decided to work hard, and it was through hard work that her obstacles were overcome and her goals were acheived, not by standing around with a sign whining about her perceived personal woes.

Although many readers may have never heard the name Judith Sheindlin, most have probably heard of "Judge Judy," from the CBS TV courtroom show of the same name. Judith was interviewed by feminist fake news reporter Katie Couric in 2013, and to Couric's surprise, Judith denied any association with feminism:
"COURIC: You talk about law school and I think it's interesting to note because I think we're both feminists in our own way, in our own time... when you went to law school, weren't you one of the first, the only lawyer, the only female law student in your law school class?
SHEINDLIN: My first year, there was a class of 126, and I was the only woman in that class, and it's interesting, I never considered myself a feminist. All during my professional career, whether it be a lawyer or a judge, I never belonged to a woman's organization. I didn't want to be—I wasn't a woman lawyer, I was a lawyer who happened to be a woman. I wasn't a woman judge, I was a judge who happened to be a woman. I actually never felt—probably I was too stupid to know I was held back at any time because of my gender. And I still don't; I still don't feel as if there was any time in my life when I thought that being a woman held me back, except for my first job... [Sheindlin then relates a story about her first job as a lawyer for a cosmetics company not being taken seriously; not being given duties befitting a lawyer.] You define yourself. If you let other people define you, that's a mistake... I never felt the need to have a feminine organization behind me...
COURIC: I think of feminism as the social, political, and economic equality for men and women. So I wish people [i.e. she means Judy] would embrace the term because I think it's gotten a bad rap. So it's interesting for me to hear you say that; it's almost like you don't want to be associated with feminism.
SHEINDLIN: No, because I don't think a movement, actually Katie, helped me. I can understand that a movement is necessary to get something off the ground, perhaps. I think we needed a movement in order to get the right to vote, but I certainly don't want pay parallel with most men. [i.e. she makes a lot more money than most men] I think you define your own world, and being part of an organization never defined me... I think we needed organization for certain BASIC rights, but I think you are the master of your own destiny and can be the hero of your own story, and are only defined by the measure of how much you want to work and how much you want to get there, and nobody knows that, actually, better than you do. You work hard, and you get the door prize. That's it."
-92nd Street Y, "Judge Judy with Katie Couric," Oct 2, 2013, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7p8LWbp8qM&t=495s]

Judith does tell a story about her first job with a cosmetics company as a lawyer, and they gave her duties that would normally be filled by a secretary, meaning that she was being discriminated against for being a woman. However, despite her lesser responsibilities, she got paid the same as the male attorney she was working with, and she pointed out that it was the only time that ever happened to her because, later in her life, she went on to make a lot more money than most men.

Again, the reason I bring up these examples is to dispel the feminist propaganda in the minds of readers. Women have always had the opportunity to do what they wanted to do, but as we will learn in later chapters, women have different desires, and make different life choices than men, which often leads them away from the highest stress jobs, which also tend to be the highest paying jobs.

In the grade-school classrooms, girls have overall higher grades in all subjects than boys, which feminists immediately use as statistics to support the idea that "women are smarter than men." The following study was based on research from 1914-2011, and samples were taken from 30 different countries:
"Despite the stereotype that boys do better in math and science, girls have made higher grades than boys throughout their school years for nearly a century, according to a new analysis published by the American Psychological Association... The degree of gender difference in grades increased from elementary to middle school, but decreased between high school and college."
-American Psychological Association, "Girls Make Higher Grades than Boys in All School Subjects, Analysis Finds," April 29, 2014, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades]

If we simply taking the feminists at their word without anymore research, this is another example of FEMALE privilege. If the fake feminist narrative of "equality" were true, and if boys were underperforming in education, then why is all the special treatment given to girls? If the illusion of "male privilege" were true, why are there no programs to help boys acheive the same level, and why are feminists mocking boys for being "less intelligent" than girls?

That being said, there are many more problems beneath the surface, and many people are not recognizing those problems because they have been indoctrinated by feminism and the media. For example, I finished high school with barely a C-average, having to take night courses for Math and English my senior year to graduate, I always tested low in reading comprehension score (i.e. in the ridiculous, waste-of-time and money Indiana ISTEP performance tests), and I only took college classes for one year before dropping out, but I ended up teaching myself computer programming, and as of 2024, I have been teaching in evangelism for 15 years, and I am about to publish my 11th book.

If we looked only at my performance ratings in the American education system, then I should have been a low-tier failure that should never have amounted to anything. How is it that I went on to give myself a better education than I received in the public education system?

The problem actually comes down to letter grades (in America, A is the highest and F is the lowest), or number grades depending on what country you live in, because these grades are partially government-standardized and partially up to the individual teachers, who are not trained to assess individual learning and development, but rather, they are more often trained to assess and grade students on their individual BEHAVIOR. In other words, more often than not, teachers are glorified babysitters. The letter grades in public school are a rating based more on psychological assessments rather than knowledge of a subject, and if a child scores low on that psychological assessment, they are punished by the school, and in lockstep, also by their parents.
(For more information on the pseudo-science known as "psychology" and "psychiatry," check out my free-to-read book Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil here at creationliberty.com.)

Consider a boy who shows signs of high intelligence, meaning that he can understand and work through problems simply by hearing or reading about them, and when he first enters the public education system, he hears the teacher give a lesson, quickly understands the material, but then he is sent home and required to sit quietly in his room, performing the menial task of repeating hundreds of times the same problem he already understands. Of course, we all have to do things in life that we do not want to do, but this is an unbelievably boring task for a smart mind. The boy wants to be challenged instead of being held prisoner to regurgitate the same thing he already knows over and over, just to earn a different letter grade on a piece of paper that he does not really care about because it is not going to help him get anywhere in life.

Thus, the boy begins to lose interest, often does not do homework, and fails to participate in class (if he shows up at all), not because he is unintelligent or a bad student, but because he is being judged by psychological standards that are not helping him to learn, but rather are holding him back. This is not just a hypothetical example because I have known young men like this, and though they were quiet intelligent, far smarter than I am, they ended up getting about the same grade that I got in school, simply because they were not interested in sitting quietly at a desk, to be transformed into good little girls like the system wants them to be.

Some female readers might be offended that I am talking about boy geniuses and not girl geniuses. I am not saying that there are not some smart girls, but please consider the following study:
"Throughout elementary, middle, and high school, girls earn higher grades than boys in all major subjects. Girls, however, do not outperform boys on achievement or IQ tests."
-Eric Barker, "Why Do Girls Get Better Grades Even Though Boys Score Higher On IQ Tests?" Business Insider Aug 23, 2011, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-girls-get-better-grades-even-though-boys-score-higher-on-iq-tests-2011-8]; See also Angela L. Duckworth & Martin E.P. Seligman, "Self-Discipline Gives Girls the Edge: Gender in Self-Discipline, Grades, and Achievement Test Scores," Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006, DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-02666-016]

The study showed that girls were more apt to sit quietly and do as they are told, which is a natural, God-given female trait to be an agreeable helpmeet, but boys are more apt to be challenged in active competition, which is not a favorable trait to have in a classroom setting. This is not to say that there are no inactive girls, nor am I saying that there are not boys that prefer desk work, but I am speaking of a general rule that exists in most boys and most girls. I am also not saying that the female traits I listed out are inferior, but rather, they are different because girls play a different role than boys, but only one set of traits is being rewarded in the public education system. Thus, when a significant portion of the grade is based on attendance, obedience, attitude, and participation, girls naturally have an advantage, which results in a higher letter grade, but not necessarily a higher overall intelligence, which is why boys outperform girls in intelligence tests.

IQ tests are generally centered around problem solving, which is the foundation of intelligence, and that is why females have a harder time with IQ tests because they favor male-oriented traits. Women tend to lean towards being emotional creatures, whereas boys tend to lean towards being rational creatures, both being important for their individual roles, and therefore, the majority of females do not have as much interest in problem-solving as the majority of males. With each passing year, the public education system employs primarily female teachers, making it a mostly matriarchal education system that caters to girls, rewarding girl-like behavior with higher letter grades for memorizing useless facts and regurgitating them on a quiz, while punishing boys for not acting like girls, and leaving them without a path to utilize their problem-solving intelligence for practical life purposes.

A good example of this can be seen in professional chess masters, very few of which are women because it is a mostly male-dominated field. This is not to say that women cannot be intelligent enough to be a chess master, but women make different life choices because they are a creature with a different design than men, meaning that most women do not care about things like chess because they are more emotional-oriented than problem-solvers.

Nigel Short, former British World Chess Championship finalist, has been harshly criticized for simply telling the public the truth about this issue:
"One of Britain's best chess players has sparked controversy after he said that women were inherently not as good as men at chess... Nigel Short, who lost to Garry Kasparov in the 1993 world championship, told New In Chess magazine that we should 'gracefully accept it as a fact' that women possess different skills than men, the Telegraph reports. 'I don't have the slightest problem in acknowledging that my wife possesses a much higher degree of emotional intelligence than I do,' he said. 'Likewise, she doesn't feel embarrassed in asking me to maneuver the car out of our narrow garage. One is not better than the other, we just have different skills. It would be wonderful to see more girls playing chess, and at a higher level, but rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact.'"
-Noah Rayman, "Chess Master Says Men Naturally Better Players Than Women," Time, Apr 20, 2015, retrieved Jan 7, 2017, [time.com/3828179/chess-nigel-short-sexist-inequality]

I would correct Short by saying that the term "emotional intelligence" is nebulous and nonsensical, and feminists often use this term to try and justify another nebulous and nonsensical term called "emotional abuse," and I will talk more about that in the next chapter. There are no problem-solving aspects to emotions because facts do not care about our feelings, but this was his way to credit females on their sensitivity that, in reality, has low practical value in most situations; having high value only in terms of nurturing situations (e.g. raising babies, nursing the sick, etc).

Boys tend to lean toward subjects that fit their way of thinking, and girls tend to lean toward subjects that fit their way of thinking. This is a not a cause for dispair, nor is it breaking news that no one has ever discovered before. This is why boys tend to be more attracted to swords and girls tend to be more attracted to flowers, and we need both of them to maintain a balanced relationship between logic and empathy, strength and beauty, battle and comfort (all of which have their time and place), but when a man points out the clearly obvious tendencies of girls in the world today, he gets burned by the media and yowling feminists.

The point of all this is to say that, as of 2024, boys are vilified for their naturally-male tendencies, which lead them to do the necessary dirty and dangerous jobs in our society, like fire fighting, law enforcement, military, construction, mining, sewage, etc. This villification of boys and glorification of girls is called FEMALE privilege, and it gives girls many advantages that boys never get.

Wayne State University did a study in 2012 which found that boys are generally receiving lower-quality care from caregivers than girls:
"This study examined differences in the quality of child care experienced by toddler boys and girls. Boys were more likely to be in lower-quality child care than girls, assessed with both setting-level measures and observations of caregiver-child interaction... As hypothesized, the caregivers of the toddlers in this sample revealed significantly more negative perceptions of boys than of girls. They not only portrayed boys as displaying more problematic, active, and disinhibited behavior, but also indicated that their relationships with boys were characterized by greater conflict and less closeness than their relationships with girls. Importantly, the caregivers' portrayals of their relationships with boys and girls as conflictual or close were significantly intercorrelated with their portrayals of whether the children displayed behavior problems... and active/angry temperaments... suggesting a strong, generalized negative (boys) or positive (girls) view of the children in their care. Their perceptions of the children were also associated with caregiving quality such that more negative views of a given child - regardless of gender - predicted poorer-quality caregiving, rated by independent observers, for that child."
-Abby C. Winer & Deborah A. Phillips, "Boys, Girls, and 'Two Cultures' of Child Care," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, January, 2012, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23098061]

In other words, the study showed that caregivers, who are primarily women, provide less quality care to boys than to girls because they are not connecting emotionally to boys. Because women tend to favor girls over boys, caregivers are giving boys "negative" feedback of "behaving poorly," because in our society, boys are expected to behave like girls.

This means young boys are already being conditioned to throw off their masculine nature, and so they end up confused by the time they have barely learned to walk on their own, thinking that everything they do as males is error and bad behavior that needs to be "fixed." This is FEMALE privilege that girls get from the moment they are born.

It is also important to point out this study used independent observers to rate children BEFORE caretakers were brought in to interact with the young boys and girls involved in the study. The third-party, independent observers reported that the children did not "differ in their peer interactions or compliance with caregivers... nor did they differ in lab-based observations of temperament," which means they confirmed the boys and girls were behaving as equally as possible with no behavioral problems, and the favoritism of girls and negative feedback for boys appeared from the biased female caregivers.

Does this mean that the women involved in the study are sexist, and knew they were biasing themselves against boys? Likely not. However, feminist propaganda transforms a person's philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), and so men and women alike can be indoctrined into feminist ideology, causing them to automatically live their lives according to feminist principles, showing bias towards females and oppressing males, without realizing that they are doing it, even in situations like this, where there is not yet any distinguishable difference in behavior between the two sexes.

The study also said:
"The finding regarding caregiver portrayals of their relationships with the children is of particular concern in light of substantial evidence that positive student-teacher/caregiver relationships play an important, and perhaps predictive, role in fostering children's positive engagement in both academic and social aspects of early schooling... [It is] difficult to believe that caregivers of 2-year-olds have developed gender-linked stereotypes that disadvantage boys, although this is precisely what our findings imply - a possibility that is important to examine in future research."
-Abby C. Winer & Deborah A. Phillips, "Boys, Girls, and 'Two Cultures' of Child Care," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, January, 2012, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23098061]

This becomes extremely concerning when we consider that, according to the National Women's Law Center, 94% of childcare workers are women! This means that boys are being frowned upon and having their roles as males corrected as "bad behavior" before they are old enough to even have enough personality development to differentiate their behavior from girls, and because of their so-called "behavioral problems," most parents and schools immediately put them on drugs to "solve" the alleged "trouble" of being born a male.
(See National Women's Law Center, "60 Percent of Women's Job Gains in the Recovery are in Low-Wage Jobs, NWLC Analysis Finds," July 24, 2013, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/60percentfactsheet.pdf])

Let's suppose a white-skinned teacher is questioned about her relationship with her students, and she said she favored (i.e. is happier with) the white-skinned children, but the black-skinned children were just misbehaving all the time and frustrating to deal with, and so the state and school determined that the black-skinned children have mental problems, and should be put on drugs like Ritalin so they will act more like the white-skinned children. The media would lose their minds in outrage that something like that was even being considered because it would clearly be an example of racist bigotry against dark-skinned people, but when it comes to sexist bigotry against males, no one bats an eyelash.

After their toddler years, most boys enter the American public elementary school (to be indoctrinated by federally-mandated, anti-America textbooks), and later, they will be forced to attend middle-school classrooms, which are dominated by female teachers, meaning that, no matter how fair the women may think they are, they mark down boys for "misbehavior," when in reality, their preconceived definition of "misbehavior" is actually "not behaving like the girls." The female is the standard which all boys are expected to emulate, which is what we call FEMALE privilege, and it is sad to see how many young men are being destroyed in our school system, being held back by standards that ignore their true potential and starve them of real education. (In other words, get your children out of the public school system as soon as possible, so they can start learning something.)

Get your children out of publicly-funded schools if you want them to be educated.

As boys get older, they discipline themselves more to able to sit, be quiet, and learn, but the presence of female teachers still creates an undiscussed bias. Christopher Cornwell, head of economics at the University of Georgia's College of Business, gives another unique perspective after his study of 5,800 students (kindergarten through fifth grade):
"Girls didn't all of a sudden become more engaged and boys didn't suddenly become more rambunctious... Their attitudes toward learning were always this way. But it didn't show up in educational attainment like it does today because of all the factors that previously discouraged women's participation in the labor force, such as a lack of access to reliable birth control."
-Christopher Cornwell, quoted by Matt Weeks, "New UGA research helps explain why girls do better in school," UGA Today, Jan 2, 2013, retrieved Mar 28, 2024, [https://news.uga.edu/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/]

In other words, there used to be a larger male presence in education until birth control was more economically accessible and socially acceptable for women. The standard of life was for a man and woman to get married, the woman gets pregnant, and she would be a mother and homemaker to raise her children, which means there used to be many more responsible women and good mothers because they chose to dedicate themselves to their children. Today, birth control is preventing pregnancy (and in some cases, murdering babies), and so without the natural female purpose of raising children, women have set their focus on entering the work force as a wage slave, and because women do not take the hard jobs that men do, more women end up being teachers, to the point that men now have a hard time getting a job teaching, which also means the fluctuation of the grading system is now a reflection of feminine styles of learning that shows bias against boys, which praises girls and hinders the education of boys.

Granted, there are many examples of male teachers being sexist against girls as well. I am certainly not saying that all male teachers are good, nor am I saying that all female teachers are bad; I have seen good and evil in both male and female teachers. However, what is being ignored today, and what we never hear about, are the biases of female teachers in a female-dominated school system against boys becuase boys are trained to suffer and not complain.

As we can see, men and boys have very little, if any, privilege, but women and girls have more privilege than can fathom. It is FAR easier to be a female in this life than it is to be a man, and in later chapters, we will learn that some women have tried to become men for a time, thinking it would be easier, only to switch back to living as a woman because living as a man drove them to the brink of suicide.

This chapter was just an introduction to female privilege, to help establish that male privilege is an illusion. To fully understand that men do not get privilege in our modern society, we need look no further than family court.



 

In Febuary of 2018, a little-known book was released called How to Destroy a Man Now, which emphasizes the acronym "D.A.M.N." because the book's sole purpose is to "Destroy A Man Now." It was written by a woman under the pseudonym "Angela Confidential" (which essentially means, "Secret Angel") to help women lie, cheat, and manipulate the system, to steal everything from a man, and leave him with nothing.
(See Angela Confidential, How to Destroy a Man Now [DAMN]: A Handbook, Lemons to Lemonade Publishing, 2018, ISBN: 9780999820322)

Angela provides a long list of famous and wealthy men who have had their lives and businesses destroyed simply from the allegation of sexual abuse. The fake news media gained prestige in the minds of the people over the past century, and therefore, many people believe an "allegation" that is reported in the mainstream without first waiting for evidence to prove if the allegation is true.

allegation (n): an assertion made with little or no proof
assertion (n): a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
(See 'allegation' & 'assertion', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Allegations create headlines, headlines generate interest, interest produces clicks, and clicks increase the advertising profit for media companies. Thus, it has become profitable for media to report "allegations" by women against men, meaning that it is just a claim without evidence, and the public generally believes it, which often causes men to get fired from their jobs, lose business deals, and get expelled from schools.

In the age of the internet, women no longer require television media or newspaper headlines to spread false allegations because they can do it on their own. In her book, Angela indirectly advises women to make many blogs and other social media posts accusing men of sexual abuse against both women and children that include his full name, public photos, and personal details (such as the city in which he lives, job, business associates, etc), so that internet search results for his name and details will pull up allegations of rape and pedophilia next to his picture.

"Next, in order to attract the proper attention, the post title and content you craft [make up without evidence] need to include scandalous allegations about the man victimizing others by violating legal or ethical standards. Anything shocking can work, but crimes of a sexual and violent nature against women and/or children seem to work best. A few examples include rape or sexual assault, physical assault (e.g., beating women), and pedophilia. Other vices, such as alcoholism and drug abuse, can also work but appear less effective (perhaps because victims are less apparent). Either way, both approaches are even more effective when phrased as helpful warnings to the public, most likely because they appeal to authorities' 'guardian and savior' role by implying that 'weak' people are presently at risk. For example, a post title could read as follows: 'Warning! All women beware of rapist Dr. Joe A. Smith, MD, ENT specialist...' Further, while the post content requires more detail, it needs to be only about a paragraph in length for search engines to detect it, index it, and rank it highly in SERPs. [Search Engine Results Pages]"
(See Angela Confidential, How to Destroy a Man Now [DAMN]: A Handbook, Lemons to Lemonade Publishing, 2018, p. 24, ISBN: 9780999820322)

In the age of fast-paced media, headlines do more damage than anything else because a headline can make a claim without evidence, and most people will believe it because they do not have time to read every article they encounter, nor do they take the time to consider what evidence is available in constrast to the claims. Most people will never look through a blog post or other article to investigate the details because only seeing one or two lines in the search engine snippet is enough for them, and so they will take only one or two sentences of a rumor and assume the rest is true.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him.
-Proverbs 18:13

folly (n): weakness of intellect; imbecility of mind; want of understanding
(See 'folly', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 2, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge:
but a fool layeth open his folly.
-Proverbs 13:16

fool (n): one who is destitute of reason, or the common powers of understanding; an idiot; a wicked or depraved person who acts absurdly; one who does not exercise his reason; one who pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom
(See 'fool', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 2, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

False allegations from women are a long-standing problem, but with access to the internet, and rise of gynocentric ideology, the problem has gotten much worse. Although God's Word gives commandments against female false accusers, the women of the world will continue to do it, and so the only thing we can do to combat the lies of women is to be vigilant, refusing to believe anything we hear until we first research and see the evidence, and then fix the laws to heavily punish lying women who defame their adversaries with false allegations.

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
-Titus 2:3-5

Although some readers might see this as simply a cruel form of revenge, it is much more than that. These posts are not just intended to strip a man of his income, but also to isolate him from family and friends, who no longer trust him because they think he is a rapist and/or pedophile, and all of this is a "legal" form of extortion.

extortion (n): the act or practice of wresting any thing from a person by force, duress, menaces, authority, or by any undue exercise of power
(See 'extortion', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 2, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10

There are various online forums whose sole purpose is to allow women to join and make accusations against men without evidence, so they can be found on search engine results. These forums openly state that they are just a platform, and take no responsibility for the things posted (to absolve themselves of responsibility), and if they are contacted to remove certain posts which are untrue, the forum website will essentially hold the posts online in a sort of hostage negotiation (or blackmail), where the man must end up paying large sums of money to have them taken down, even though the efforts will not do much good because the majority of the damage has already been done.

The most popular search engines are set up to push these false allegations to the top of the list:
"Similar to complaint websites, search engines absolve themselves of responsibility for the search results they serve up by attesting that they do not create the content; rather, they just convey information already on the Internet. But... search engines actually do influence the impact of internet content on the public by choosing which content to promote at the top of their search results. For example, there may be thousands of listings on the Internet associated with a search for 'Dr. Joe A. Smith, ENT specialist,' yet the listings on complaint websites seem to be served up first in Google's search results. This works so well that a complaint posted on RipoffReport, for instance, about a company or a person typically ranks higher in Google's search results than the company's website or the person's Facebook profile! And Google does deserve special commendation in this regard, as it is the most popular search engine and appears to place a greater priority on serving up scandalous content in comparison to other search engines like Bing."
(See Angela Confidential, How to Destroy a Man Now [DAMN]: A Handbook, Lemons to Lemonade Publishing, 2018, p. 33, ISBN: 9780999820322)

In a classic feminist style of viciousness, Angela points out that the Google should receive "special commendation" for pushing the lies of women to the top of their search results. She believes that Google should be praised for their assistance in the unjust destruction of men, and I can only hope that, by the grace of God, Google one day might be prosecuted, broken up, and thoroughly investigated for their many crimes, this being only one of countless that could be mentioned.

Please take a moment to carefully consider the definition of 'abuse':

abuse (n): wrong or improper use
(See 'abuse', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Normally, when we think of abuse, we think of a man hitting a women, right? Outside of a situtation that requires self-defense, or in to stop a crime from happening, if a man physically strikes his wife or girlfriend in rage, then it is the wrong or improper use of a woman.

On the other hand, if a woman strikes a man (which happens more often than you might think, as we will learn later), it is also the wrong and improper use of a man. However, the definition of abuse covers many more aspects than just physical attacks.

If someone points a gun at a man, and he grabs a woman to use her as a shield, that is the improper use of a woman, and thus, is abuse. On the other hand, if a woman falsely accuses a man to cause him to suffer, that is wrong and improper use of a man, which is abuse.

Women abuse men everyday, without punishment. Worse still, the media praises them for it, and the court system rewards them for it.

Angela has laid the groundwork to describe what has been recently named "Silver Bullet Divorce" (SBD). The court system was designed by men for the punishment of criminals, which is a way to help protect women, but devilish feminists have chosen to use that system for their own selfish gain to cause men to suffer for no other reason than their psychotic rage.

"What is a Silver Bullet Divorce? If you search online, you'll find several blogs and instruction sites on how to kick your spouse out and gain leverage in a divorce case. One common thread is, if all else fails, file a PFA (Protection From Abuse) or child abuse claim. While domestic violence cases can be legitimate, the standard of evidence is entirely too low. The elected officials and attorneys who created this low standard teach other attorneys how to profit from this."
-Ann Johnson, "Low Standard of Evidence in Abuse Claims Exploited in 'Silver Bullet Divorce' Trend," Apr 12, 2013, retrieved Apr 3, 2024, [https://frankreport.com/2023/04/12/low-standard-of-evidence-in-abuse-claims-exploited-in-silver-bullet-divorce-trend/]

Because of absurd amount of FEMALE privilege in this country, a woman can simply make a claim, and her claim is assumed to be true. This means that when a woman (who commonly lies to avoid responsibility) accuses a man, he is automatically considered guilty until he can prove his innocence.

The following attorney decribes SBD in more detail:
"One of the worst things I encounter in custody cases is something called a 'Silver Bullet'. A Silver Bullet is a false allegation that's used to get an advantage in a custody case... It's a fraud that's perpetuated on the court, that paints a parent out to be an abuser. It's a false allegation that children are in danger by having parenting time with a parent, and it is illegal, but it's also nefarious because it's often difficult to disprove."
-Brighter Day Law, "What is a 'Silver Bullet Divorce'?" Feb 21, 2024, retrieved Apr 3, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGF8nb-H2tU]

Yes, it is illegal because it is perjury, which means it is false testimony that is given under oath in a court of law, but the problem is that perjury is (for some strange reason) RARELY punished by the courts. So this attorney pointed out that it is "often difficult to disprove" which has a serious implication because, as I just said, the men in these cases are presumed guilty WITHOUT requiring the woman to provide proper evidence of her claim.

As we look at some statstics, we will not only see the absurd amount of systemic FEMALE privilege that exists in our society, but we will also see how women manipulate the system to legally rape men. Despite what some people might think (due to the brainwashing of legacy media), women are the primary filers of divorce:

"Throughout most of American history, wives rather than husbands have filed for divorce. The proportion of wife-filed cases has ranged from around 60% for most of the 19th century to, immediately after the introduction of no-fault divorce, more than 70% in some states. Today, with some variation among states, it remains slightly above two-thirds. The standard explanations for this behavior include the following... women file to assure their innocence in the underlying proceeding; women file to secure rights to custody, support, and attorney's fees... or women file simply because it is more convenient for them to do so. While these explanations have some merit, even in combination they cannot explain the variation in filing rates across states [See Image], the persistence of the 'gender gap' in filing through time, nor the systematic filing behavior..."

[Click image for larger view]

-Margaret F. Brinig & Douglas W. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," American Law and Economics Association, 2000, p. 126-128, retrieved Sept 21, 2016, [unc.edu/courses/2010fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf]

There is a lot to unpack here because the fake news media and vicious feminist groups have pushed the narrative that women file more often for divorce because men are so horrible and abuse them. However, the evidence shows that women filing for divorce for real domestic violence is a relatively small percentage, and most of the filings are for selfish reasons, to get money and custody of children, because women know they can use the system to vacuum all the resources out of men, leaving them in poverty without access to their family.

Before the 1970s, couples used to have to "find fault" in their spouse before they could get divorced, either proof (i.e. providing evidence that can draw definite conclusions) of domestic violence against the spouse, physical harm against children, or proof of an extra-marital affair, but a no-fault divorce means that the spouse who files for divorce does NOT have to provide evidence of any wrongdoing in order to end the marriage. Ronald Reagan was the U.S. President who signed the Equal Rights Amendment, which allowed no-fault divorce, starting a wildfire of women breaking up families, and this is one of the many reasons I advise Christians NOT to sign a marriage license with the state when you get married because it allows the government to maintain control over issues that should remain within the family at home. (i.e. Marriage licenses are NOT, and never have been, a requirement to be married.)
(Read The Biblical Understand of Weddings & Marriage here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The study showed that some of the states analyzed had women filing for divorce as high as 81%, and although that was 20 years ago, the problem has gotten worse over time because fewer and fewer men are getting married, which is logical since the system is rigged against them. On average, overs two-thirds of divorces are women, which destroys the preconceived fake news narrative that most women are trying to keep the family together.

I am not arguing against some of the filings, which involve the spouse (by both men and women) divorcing over drunken physical violence and cheating, but as the study said, it is statistically impossible for those factors alone to account for the extraordinarily high percentage of women who file for divorce across the U.S. As of 2024, getting a divorce is so easy and pays out so well for women, they would prefer to divorce than to stay and work things out with their husbands.

Margaret Brinig of Notre Dame Law School performed a study with Douglas Allen at Simon Fraser University:
"The results Allen and I found, using divorce statistics, were consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by some sort of self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving after receiving the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. [i.e. mental and/or physical suffering] Interestingly though, cruelty amounts to only a small percentage of all divorce filings in Virginia (6%), the only state whose data permitted us to sort out the proven reasons for divorce. We found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long. What does all this mean for divorce reform and for predictions of future filing behavior? It suggests that as men's and women's labor-force income becomes more nearly equal, the state difference in filing rates should disappear and will likely be determined by custody alone."
-Margaret F. Brinig, Family, Law, and Community: Supporting the Covenant, University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 87, ISBN: 9780226075020

If courts were going to do what is in the "best interest of the children," then they would stop granting so many no-fault divorces and tell the mother and father to work out their problems and stay together, but of course, that is not how things work now. The courts pump out divorces in conveyor-belt fashion, and so the primary care of the children is granted to one of the two parents (referred to as the "custodial parent") in nearly all cases.

I am certain we would find some surprising studies if researchers were allowed access court data, but sadly, only one state allowed it. These state governments claim on the outside that they are "protecting the data of citizens" (despite the fact that they spy on us all the time, and abuse that data for their ends), but in reality, they know that allowing researchers access to it would likely uncover things that make the state and courts look bad, and so they refuse access to things that ought to be matters of public record. (i.e. If marriages are public record, then divorces should be as well.)

The authors predicted that the differences in divorce filings would start to disappear as more women entered the work force to make as much as men, but despite the fact that has long been the case (i.e. women make as much, or more, than men, as we will learn in a later chapter), it has not happened. In fact, it was laughable to me that the researchers in this study had so much faith in the benevolence of women towards men, which demonstrates their bais towards the fake feminist narrative. The reality is that women's pupils were replaced with dollar signs when they realized they could game the system to extort men for everything they have (so the women never has to work), female divorce filings have substantially increased as women have entered the work force.

The United States Census Bureau reports:
"The majority of custodial parents were mothers (82.2 percent), and about 1 in 6 (17.8 percent) were fathers, proportions which were not statistically different from 1994."
-Timothy S. Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2009," United States Census Bureau, December, 2011, p. 2, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/demo/p60-240.pdf]

Women are awarded custody of their children 6 to 1 over men, and you will likely hear the same tired narrative from feminists that this is because men are rapists and violent abusers, but later, we will learn that children are statistically more likely to suffer rape and abuse at the hands women rather than men. Because the reasons for divorce are often self-serving (i.e. not for the benefit and safety of the family), we can see that women fight to break up the family almost 70% of the time, and then take the children away from their fathers over 80% of the time.

If we live in a world that has such a vicious patriarchy that is so oppressive to women, and "male privilege" is prodominant that men get all the benefits, then why are women getting so much privilege in court? Why are women believed without evidence? Why do women get the children, alimony, and child support, almost automatically?

In many of these divorce cases, the man has to pay for his own lawyer and court fees, he also has to pay for the woman's lawyer as well. Consider for a moment that a woman was accused of lying about a man, brought into court on defamation charges, but she was automatically required to pay the opposing attorneys who were prosecuting her; although we would never allows such a thing to happen to women, men are subjected to this unjust penalty, and most people do not care because FEMALES have all the privilege.

In the less than 18% of custody battles in which men win their children, in many of those cases, he only wins because the mother did not show up to court. Winning by default is not technically a "win" concerning custody statistics because there was no battle, and thus, for most men, the only hope that they will get their children is if the woman is not privy to the fact that she will get everything from the man if she just shows up.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska Office released a study about custody hearings in family court to analyze the often-used "legal" phrase "the best interests of the child," in effort to "help divorcing parents to place their child at the center of parental decision-making as opposed to having their child caught in the middle of adult disputes." They chose 392 random sample cases out of almost 70,000 cases in Nebraska between 2002 and 2012, and reported the following: "Of the 392 cases, there were 663 children included in the analysis (almost equal boys and girls under the age of 18). Plaintiffs were more likely to be mothers and the defendants were more likely to be fathers. Fathers had statistically higher incomes than mothers. Both plaintiffs and defendants reported that children were more likely residing in the primary residence of the mother at the time of filing. In the original complaint, parties requested joint custody about 1/7 of the time. In a vast majority of cases, plaintiffs [i.e. women] were represented by attorneys at the time of the filing of the complaint. Defendants, upon entry into the case, were represented in about half of the cases."
-Michael Saini, "Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study," Nebraska Office of State Court Administrator, Dec 31, 2013, p. 8, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/publication-report-files/2002-2012-custody-court-file-research-study.pdf]

I will continue to quote that report in a moment, but let's pause and consider that women are more often the plantiffs because they file for divorce 70% of the time, and in most of those cases, the men do not want to divorce. Men also have statistically higher incomes, and as we will learn in a later chapter, this is NOT due to a "wage gap," but rather, it is due to women working less hours in less demanding, low-risk jobs. Most of these custody hearings are taking place during the divorce, with the woman not working, and so she takes from the funds he has earned to pay her attorney, which often leaves men without money to defend themselves, in addition to the fact that she has far more time to prepare her case because she does not work as much as he does, and thus, men have legal representation in far less cases than privileged women.

In most cases, the children were living with the mother at the time of the break up (often being taken by the mother while the father is away at work, or the father leaving the house at the request of the mother, having to pay for a separate apartment he can live in, costing him more money), and so to move the children in with their father is usually seen by the court as "not in the best interest of the children," and in addition to that, only 1 in 7 cases was a joint custody requested (which fathers are often advised NOT to do by attorneys because it will cost them far more money then they could hope to repay, and would the father usually loses the battle anyway), which leaves 6 out of 7 where the father is fighting for full custody, but loses nearly every time. So when the father knows that he has extremely low chances of winning custody in court cases, and would likely end up having to pay out enormous law fees for both himself and his wife (in addition to up to 40% of his income for child support, plus alimony payments), he has no other choice than to just let the mother have her way, giving her custody, than to put himself into poverty and massive debt, which is why some fathers do not bother contesting for their children in court.

Certainly, there are some deadbeat dads that do not want anything to do with their children, so the mother has to step in to take charge of the situation, and in those cases, I completely understand the court coming down on the man to take some responsibility, however, we almost never hear about deadbeat moms, which is MORE common than deadbeat dads, as I will show in a moment. The Nebraska study found that the typical feminist argument that "men often lack skill or ability to raise children" (e.g. unemployed, abusive, drunk, homeless, drug addict, etc) was found to have almost no merit because in 83.8% of cases reviewed, the objection to ability or skill in raising children was never questioned by the court for either the man or woman. (i.e. Meaning both parties had full capability to raise the children.)
(See Michael Saini, "Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study," Nebraska Office of State Court Administrator, Dec 31, 2013, p. 28, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/publication-report-files/2002-2012-custody-court-file-research-study.pdf])

So to summarize, women get sole child custody in about 70% of cases (because of FEMALE privilege), while men get sole child custody in only about 13% of cases, with the remaining 17% being joint custody, and thus, if women are awarded the vast majority of child custody, then who has to pay all the child support? The secret reason women fight so hard for child custody is NOT because they love their children (i.e. if they truly loved their children, they would not have broekn up the family in the first place), but rather, it is because women do not want to have to pay child support like men do, and so because a woman know that the man cannot afford to fight her in the female-biased court system, he is often coerced (with assistance of false allegations through Silver Bullet Divorce) into giving up child custody to her because he would be end up broke, homeless, and friendless after a near-hopeless battle.

According to 2011 U.S. Department of Commerce reports, men are ordered to pay MORE child support than women, and in the uncommon cases where women are ordered to pay, they do so less often than men, even though they do not have to pay as much overall. On average, women who are owed child support only receive a total of 63.2%, but men only received 54.6% of what women owe. In case the chart is confusing to some readers, the "Amount Due" is how much the father (blue) or mother (red) is supposed to get from the other parent, and the "Amount Received" is how much they actually got, showing that men are required to pay more than women, and men are more responsible to pay than women, and this does NOT include the costs of other things men voluntarily pay for their children (e.g. holidays, birthdays, emergencies, etc) despite the fact that they do not get to see them very often.

(See Timothy Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2011," U.S. Department of Commerce, October, 2013, p. 7, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-246.pdf])

This proves what I said earlier, that deadbeat moms are more frequent than dead-beat dads, and yet, hardly anyone ever complains about deadbeat moms because, once again, men more often step up to take care fo the children. According to the same U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, men paid women child support 44% of the time, whereas women paid men child support only 41% of the time, and women did not receive any child support payments from men 25% of the time, but men did not receive any payments from women 32% of the time, or in other words, 1 out of 4 men do not pay child support, but 1 out of 3 women do not pay.

When I released my book called The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage (free-to-read at creationliberty.com, keyword search 'marriage'), I talked about the problem with state marriage licenses; not just that they are unnecessary to be married, but also that they are a contractual trap that has many pitfalls for men, women, and children. Afterwards, I received quite a number of emails in which people attempted to justify their marriage licenses to me, not because they offered me any logical, researched argument, but because they knew that if they did not go through with getting their marriage liences (or dissolving them), it could cause turmoil among family, friends, and in whatever corrupted corporate church building they attended, meaning that they were more concerned with social niceties than they were with legal ramifications.

Of course, these emails were pointless because, since they were trying to fight against my lengthy research with their meaningless opinions, there was nothing I could say to convince them otherwise, but I still made some attempt to explain to them that there are hidden things in that marriage contract (which is actually a corporate business contract) that couples never read before signing it. For example, a man marries a woman, she gives birth to a child, two years later, he finds out she was cheating on him, gets a paternity test, discovers the child is not his, and files for divorce, but even though there is proof the child is not his (i.e. she committed fraud, which is highly illegal), because he signed a marriage contract, he is now bound by law to pay a cheating woman for another man's child for the next two decades.

Because men generally work harder to provide, and are taught from a young age to not complain, men are less likely to go after women for not paying child support, but because women are more apt to get something for nothing, men are more often targeted for not paying child support, even in cases where the child is not his. States have passed laws that can take away a man's driver's license and passport, deduct wages automatically from his paychecks, and sometimes even throw him in jail if he does not pay, which makes the U.S. one of the few places left in the world where there are "debtors prisons."

For many centuries in Europe, debtors' prison was how government dealt with unpaid debts, but this is contrary to a liberty-based nation that we were supposed to have under the U.S. Constitution, and thus, in 1833, debtors' prisons were banned under federal law, and in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that incarcerating those who owed debts was unconstitutional. However, despite the Supreme Court ruling, judges get around this by claiming that men who have not paid are in "contempt of court," and in contempt, judges can hold men in prison for up to one year, giving judges FAR more unjust power (i.e. they have authority over the executive branch of law enforcement) than the U.S. Constitution originally allowed them to have. Thus, despite what corrupt judges want to call it, it is a debtors' prison, meaning that if a man loses his job and cannot find another, the police will be sent to his house, they will arrest him in front of his neighbors for not making child support payments, and throw him in jail until he works off what he owes, and right now, in 2024, there are many men being held in debtors' prison across the country.
(See Lina Guillen, "Pay Child Support or Face an Arrest Warrant," Lawyers.com, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://legal-info.lawyers.com/family-law/child-support/pay-child-support-or-face-an-arrest-warrant.html])

Ben Hart, more commonly known as the "break-dancing dad" (who competed in professional break-dancing tournaments at 60-years-old), got some real-life experience in debtors' prison. In 2023, Hart's daughter, Mad went onto social media, and got millions of views talking about her break-dancing dad, while accusing him of abandoning her mom and three siblings to persue a dancing career, which was just one of many lies that Hart's ex-wife told her.
(See Ben Hart, "My Conflict With My Daughter | Why I Went To Jail," Mar 26, 2024, retrieved Apr 6, 2024, [https://youtu.be/OB55RSL5Ve8?si=pj8Dq61pGKwK8dyv])

Hart came out with the true story that, in 2005, while living in Virginia, he and his ex-wife finalized their divorce, and part of the divorce agreement was to allow the ex-wife to take the children to live in Illinois, halfway across the country, because his ex-wife's family lived there. Hart agreed to this and planned to move there at the same time so he could be near the family.

Hart worked in advertising, and was good at his job, amassing quite a bit of wealth, but the other part of the divorce agreement was that Hart would have to give his ex-wife ALL of the marital assets, which he agreed to because he was confident in his ability to make a living. Hart gave her 97% of what he had, which amounted to around $1.8 million (in the mid-2000s value of currency, which likely more than I will ever make in my lifetime) so his ex-wife could be a stay-at-home mom that did not have to work, and the other 3% was paid to the lawyers, leaving him with nothing.

In deceptive fashion, Hart's ex-wife took the money, sold the house very quickly, and moved immediately afterwards, not communicating with him, nor giving him enough time to get enough money to move with them. The ex-wife, after taking nearly $2 million from Hart, subpoenaed Hart clients to investigate if there was anymore hidden money should get out of him, and Hart lost all his clients because they did not want to be involved in divorce depositions. (And she has started doing it to him again after he started telling the truth.)

Hart lost his house, his job, his wife, and his children all at once, but to make matters worse, he had agreed to give his ex-wife $100,000 in addition to all the marital assets, but she took everything he had, so he could not immediately pay the $100k. The ex-wife (with her attorneys, paid for by Hart) sued Hart for the $100k, plus her attorney fees, and so Hart had to show up to court without a lawyer (because he had nothing left), and he had the distinct pleasure of getting a stuck-up, feminist judge named Leslie Alden.
(See Juridical Solutions, "Leslie M. Alden," retrieved Apr 5, 2024, [https://juridicalsolutions.com/professionals/hon-leslie-m-alden-ret-juridical-solutions-mediation-arbitration/])

Alden ignored all the details of what the ex-wife and her law team did to Hart (because she is a vicious feminist), and demanded to know when Hart would pay his ex-wife the $100k. Hart told Alden he did not know when he could pay it because he had to rebuild his business, but that was not good enough for Alden so she threw him in jail until he could pay off his debt, or in other words, a debtors' prison.


While he was in jail, he met many other rough and tough inmates, but they sympathized with his situation because most of them were in there for the very same thing! Thankfully, Hart managed to get out after a couple weeks after getting a note to the judge promising to pay $2,000/per month, but Alden told him he had 2 years to pay it or she would throw him back in debtors' prison.

What are men supposed to do in these situations? I have heard this same type of story many times, and I personally know men who gave their ex-wives everything, but the women wanted more and more and more; these malicious, self-entitled, greedy feminists never stop, and if any readers want to know why 80% of all suicides are men, you are reading about it right now.

If that were not bad enough, I think readers should know that Ben Hart's ex-wife is Betsy Hart, who now goes by Betsy Meade, and is a so-called "Christian conservative" columnist for The Heritage Foundation, an activist organization that helps influence the creation of laws across the U.S. If that were not dangerous and hypocritical enough, she has published two books, one called It Takes a Parent: How the Culture of Pushover Parenting is Hurting Our Kids and What to Do About It (published in 2006, just a year after her divorce from Ben), and another called From The Hart: on Love, Loss, Marriage (and Other Extreme Sports), of which, the titles alone demonstrate her extreme willful blindness and arrogance.
(See Betsy Hart, It Takes a Parent: How the Culture of Pushover Parenting Is Hurting Our Children and What to Do About It, TarcherPerigee, August, 2006, ASIN: B002J05H02; See also Betsy Hart, From The Hart: on Love, Loss, Marriage (and Other Extreme Sports), ProvidencePress, May, 2012, ISBN: 9780615608846)

Although it is difficult to find Betsy's old newspaper articles, I was able to find an obscure Russian website that had them documented, and I thought that was odd until I learned that Betsy has a degree in Russian studies. Here is an excerpt from one of her articles: "But the proper meaning of love really isn't warm or romantic feelings, as wonderful as those are. The proper meaning of "love" is a more ancient, even biblical one, meaning to be committed to another, to doing good unto that other, regardless of any feelings involved at the moment, and regardless of whether the object of that love even deserves it at the moment."
-Betsy Hart, "Today's Corrupted Notion of Love Robs Us of Joy," retrieved Apr 9, 2024, [https://relax899.blogspot.com/2012/03/todays-corrupted-notion-of-love-robs-us.html])

Do you think Betsy was a loving mother to lie to her children? Do you think she was expressing the "Biblical love" she just described to Ben when she took millions of dollars from him, used it to hire lawyers to war against thim, and then forced him into debtors' prison while stealing his children from him?
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Love" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Betsy has been interview on Oprah, FOX News, and CBN (the so-called "Christian" Broadcasting Network), who painted her as the poor mother who went through a divorce with a terrible husband and became the single mother of four children, but some strange mystical force prevented them from reporting that she stole every last dime from her huband, amounting to millions of dollars, had him thrown in debtors' prison, drove 12 hours (800 miles) away with his four children, did everything she could to prevent him from seeing them, and lied to them that their father "abandoned" them. In an CBN interview, Betsy acted like she was a poor victim who had to raise four children on her own without any help:
"HOST: You went through a divorce in 2004, what was that like for you?
BETSY: Well, I was devastated; very much did not want, it was not my choice, but suddenly, there I was with four very young children, just ten down to three, and I was sort of thinking, 'Oh my goodness, what do I do now?' Fortunately, I had a wonderful support network, and I had had a wonderful church life, and was already walking with God, and then he used that to come in and draw me, I think, so much closer to himself."
-Betsy Hart (Meade), "Columnist Betsy Hart on Life After Divorce," CBN, Dec 10, 2022, retrieved Apr 9, 2024, [https://www2.cbn.com/article/not-selected/columnist-betsy-hart-life-after-divorce]

She tells others to have faith and a church-ianity support network, but does NOT advise them to do what she did, which was utilize the court system against her ex-husband for millions. The following is a short summary of what Ben Hart paid to Betsy and the children in years following their divorce: (Click Image for Larger View)

She also fails to mention that she took every legal avenue to prevent Ben Hart from seeing his children:
Ben was able to make a lot more money in his business (albeit, through a lot of struggle), pay for lawyers to defend the custody of his children, and pay all the alimony and child support (which initially amounted to around $22,000/month), plus interest. Sadly, many men are not as blessed or have the same skill set, and so they are stuck spending a large portion of their lives paying for wife who hates him, and children who he never get to see.

In the rare case where men have sole custody of their children (and are due child support payments they do not often get), the men end up working full or part-time jobs much more than women who have sole custody. Custodial men have full-time employment 71% of the time, while custodial mothers only have full-time employment 48% of the time. (See Timothy Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2011," U.S. Department of Commerce, October, 2013, p. 6, retrieved Apr 4, 2024, [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-246.pdf])

Why is it that our society is so hell-bent on making sure dads pay what they owe, when dads are FAR more likely to pay what they owe than moms? Again, this is more female privilege, in which the "horrible patriarchy" oppresses men for the sake of women, but the problem gets much worse.

Let's suppose a woman was raped, and after conviction in court, the judge gave the rapist 65% LESS punishment, and also ordered the woman to pay for the criminal's meals, clothing, housing, and therapy. There would be public outcry and protests in the streets because no one would consider that to be justice. However, when a woman rapes a man (which does happen quite frequently, and we will cover more on that in a later chapter), and the female rapist gets pregnant and has a baby from that encounter, U.S. courts have ordered the male victim to pay the female assailant child support.

In California, a 15-year-old boy was the victim of statutory rape by a 34-year-old woman. To be clear, this woman raped an underage teen, and she was permitted by the court to sue him for child support:
"A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support... The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem [represented by parent because he was underage], admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape... At the July 19, 1995, hearing at which Nathaniel J. appeared through his attorney, the district attorney stated: '[O]ur office is seeking to establish paternity. We are not seeking a child support order... until such time as the minor becomes an adult and is able to pay support.'"
-Justia U.S. Law, "County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., (1996)" No. B100055. Second Dist., Div. Six. Nov 4, 1996, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/50/842.html]

If this seems unbelievable to readers, I encourage you to check out the references and read the case for yourself because this boy (who was not a legal adult) was being charged responsible for the child of a rapist, and would have to start payments the day he turned 18-years-old. If this case were reversed, meaning that if this was a 15-year-old girl, there would be an army of protestors and media in outrage over such a ridiculous ruling, and many groups would rally to her aid, but because he is male (without any of that FEMALE privilege), he is now stuck with monthly payments until he is in his 30s, and almost no one has heard this story.

Female sexual predators are not uncommon, just uncommonly reported. The case of Shane Seyer's is no exception, and the following was opinion was filed by the Supreme Court of Kansas in 1993:
"Colleen Hermesmann routinely provided care for Shane Seyer as a baby sitter or day care provider during 1987 and 1988. The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989. At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS."
-Justia US Law, "State Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer," 252 Kan. 646, 1993, 847 P.2d 1273, No. 67978, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html]

To clarify, 16-year-old Colleen was babysitting 12-year-old Shane, and the female babysitter seduced the male child into have sex. They continued to have sex regularly over several months, and during this time, Colleen got pregnant and gave birth to a daughter when she was 17, while Shane was only 13, and she filed a claim to get child support.

"On January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender."
-Justia US Law, "State Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer," 252 Kan. 646, 1993, 847 P.2d 1273, No. 67978, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html]

Again, to clarify, it took almost 4 years before the District Attorney finally charged the female sex predator with a crime (whereas a male would have been charged immediately), and a lot of this is for a very simple reason: They have no incentive. When the public relies on the media for information, and feminist-controlled media only pushes stories that makes feminism look like a great cause, then people will not take any interest in stories like this because they will not know they exist; therefore, if the public is uninterested, the DA will also be uninterested because it is not something that will help him/her get reelected.

It should also be noted that, as far as I could tell from the summary judgment, there was no actual punishment for Colleen. She plead guilty to the sex crimes she was charged with, and the only thing they did was put it on her juvenile record, which is like a slap on the wrist for a female.

"On March 8, 1991, SRS filed a petition on behalf of Colleen Hermesmann, alleging that Shane Seyer was the father of Colleen's minor daughter, Melanic. The petition also alleged that SRS had provided benefits through the ADC program to Colleen on behalf of the child and that Colleen had assigned support *648 rights due herself and her child to SRS. The petition requested that the court determine paternity and order Shane to reimburse SRS for all assistance expended by SRS on Melanie's behalf. On December 17, 1991, an administrative hearing officer found Shane was Melanie's biological father. The hearing officer further determined that Shane was not required to pay the birth expenses or any of the child support expenses up to the date of the hearing on December 17, 1991, but that Shane had a duty to support the child from the date of the hearing forward."
-Justia US Law, "State Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer," 252 Kan. 646, 1993, 847 P.2d 1273, No. 67978, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html]

Please note that there was no DNA tests documented, and that is because they were not readily available in 1991. In my opinion, a DNA test still needs to be done, simply because if Colleen was seducing 12-year-olds, it was likely she was fornicating with other men too. The court document simply says that "an administrative hearing officer found that Shane was Melanie's biological father," not that it was proven; they simply stated it in court, and therefore, it was assumed to be true based solely on Colleen's testimony, and because of that assumption, Shane (being 15-years-old in 1991) was now responsible for child support, despite the fact that Colleen plead guilty to sex crimes.

The Kansas Supreme Court referred to the 1984 case of Weinberg v. Omar E. [106 App. Div.2d 448] to justify its decision:
"[T]he mother's alleged fault or wrongful conduct is irrelevant under section 545 of the Family Court Act [citation omitted]. The primary purpose of a paternity proceeding is to protect the welfare of the illegitimate child and, accordingly, the mother's conduct should have no bearing on the father's duty of support nor upon the manner in which the parents' respective obligations are determined [citation omitted]."
-Justia US Law, "State Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer," 252 Kan. 646, 1993, 847 P.2d 1273, No. 67978, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html]

In other words, a female's criminal actions have NO influence in ruling against men to take full responsibility in such cases. This is extraordinary FEMALE privilege, in which women can do literally anything they want, and still force men to take all the responsibility for it.

Frank Hatley paid tens of thousands of dollars in child support payments, suffering short jail terms for not paying during terms of unemployment, and it turns out the child was not even his:
"Frank Hatley, 50, spent 13 months in jail for being a deadbeat dad before his release last month. A judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" — a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley... His story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who gave birth to a son. According to court documents, Morrison told Hatley the child was his, but the two ended their relationship shortly after the child was born. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents said. When the child turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for the child. Under Georgia law, the state, can recoup the cost of the assistance from a child's non-custodial parent. For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning in 2000 that the boy might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, court documents said. He returned to court and was relieved of any future child support payments, but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 he owed the state before the ruling. Since 2000, Hatley paid that debt down to about $10,000, Geraghty said. Court documents showed he was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments, continuing to do so even after he lost another job and became homeless in 2008. But last year he became unable to make the payments and was jailed. The argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments, according to the attorney who represented him in 2000, was that he signed a consent agreement with the Office of Child Support Services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period he believed the child was his son, said attorney Latesha Bradley... Two things still remain to be cleared up for Hatley, Geraghty said — lifting the child-support holds on his driver's license... It remains unclear whether he will be reimbursed for the $6,000 in payments he made since 2000, she said — so far, he has not been."
-CNN, "Childless man released from child support debt," Aut 11, 2009, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/11/georgia.child.support/]

Is there some reason why the state (i.e. the Office of Child Support Services) could not dissolve the contract upon seeing the new evidence that Hatley was not the father? Of course they could do the right thing and dissolve the contract, but if they did that, it would also be a legal admission that a wrong was done, and that would give Hatley recourse to sue the state, which means he was forced to suffer to make the state look good and cover their tracks.

Meanwhile, the woman is getting all this money, and she does not care where it comes from, nor does she have any intention to return it to Hatley. Hatley was forced into slave labor for literally no reason, to pay for a woman who lied about him, and there was nothing he could do about it because there is no such thing as male privilege.

The Lord God hates lies and liars with the utmost hatred:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19 (Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is why I have, many times, advised Christians that they should follow the Word of God and not be involved in any sexual activity until after marriage. That alone will protect a man from unjust prosecution. Men need to be aware that, in most cases, all a woman has to do is simply write down your name as the father of her child, whether it is true or not, and she can ruin your life because she has extraordinary FEMALE privilege.

There is a law called "The Bradley Amendment," (named after Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey) which prevents any child support payments from being prohibited, reduced, or forgiven, or in other words, a man must pay full child support payments WITHOUT REGARD to circumstances. For example, if a man is drafted into military duty, he still has to make full child support payments, or at least make up for whatever he did not pay if he missed his payments. If a man is put in prison for any reason, even if he was wrongfully arrested, he has to pay. If he was hit by a drunk driver and lost his leg in the accident, he has to pay. If the government shuts down sectors of business (as it has done many times in the past) and he loses his job, he still has to pay. If he is mugged on the street and hospitalized in a coma, when he wakes up, he still has to pay all child support payments he missed. And worst of all, if the child is proven to not be his biological offspring, no retroactive modification is allowed to be made, meaning the man is liable for all child support payments, or in other words, women can fornicate and commit adultery all they want, but the men are held fiscally responsible for the actions of the females, the men go to jail if they do not pay, and the men can be put in jail without a right to a fair jury trial because male privilege is an illusion created by the feminist-controlled mainstream media.
(See Douglas R. Weimer, "The Bradley Amendment: Prohibition Against Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages," CRS Report for Congress, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://congressionalresearch.com/RS20642/document.php])

This is particularly tragic for some military personnel because, as I proved earlier, women file for divorce as much as 4 to 1 over men, and this creates a problem for military men who are away from home for long periods of time. The wife gets lonely, she decides to abandon him and files for divorce before he knows what is happening to him, and then he required to pay for everything.

Aforementioned lawyer Phyllis Schlafly said:
"Most of the reservists called up to serve in the Iraq war have paid a big price: a significant reduction of their wages as they transferred from civilian to military jobs, separation from their loved ones, and of course the risk of battle wounds or death. Regrettably, on their return home, those who are divorced fathers could face another grievous penalty: loss of their children, financial ruin, prosecution as 'deadbeat dads,' and even jail. Reservists' child-support orders were based on their civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that burden doesn't decrease. Few can get court modification before they leave, modifications are seldom granted anyway, and even if a father applied for modification before deployment the debt continues to grow until the case is decided much later. These servicemen fathers cannot get relief when they return because federal law forbids a court to reduce the debt retroactively. Once the arrearage reaches $5,000, the father becomes a felon subject to imprisonment plus the loss of his driver's and professional licenses and passport. Likewise, there is no forgiving of the interest and penalties on the child-support debt even though it is sometimes incurred because of human or computer errors. States have a financial incentive to refuse to reduce obligations because the federal government rewards the states with cash for the "deadbeat dad" dollars they collect. Laws granting deployed service personnel protection against legal actions at home date back decades, but they are ignored in the family courts. Child kidnapping laws do not protect military personnel on active duty from their ex-wives relocating their children. This injustice to our reservists serving in Iraq should be remedied by Congress and state legislatures before more fathers meet the fate of Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from North Carolina, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for five terrible months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive."
-Phyllis Schlafly, "The Price Some Reservists Have to Pay," Eagle Forum, Mar 2, 2005, retrieved Apr 10, 2024, [https://eagleforum.org/column/2005/mar05/05-03-02.html]

Donald Gardner, a truck driver from New York, learned this lesson the hard way:
"Donald Gardner owes $119,846 in back child support to his former wife, but there is little chance he will pay it soon -- or ever... Mr. Gardner broke 27 bones in a car accident in 1997. Being in and out of hospitals for three years left him penniless, and when he tried to return to work he found that the state had suspended his driver's license because of his accumulated child support debt. That prevented him from going back to work as an interstate truck driver, a job he had held for a decade before the accident. 'I've decided that I'd like to get this behind me and pay the support,' said Mr. Gardner, 47, who now lives in a homeless shelter in Harlem, 'but if I can't drive I can't pay. It is like a Catch-22.' Everybody loves to hate the so-called deadbeat dads... Legislators in many states across the country passed tough measures that allowed for, among other things, revocation of any state license and direct access to bank accounts of men not meeting their payments."
-Leslie Kaufman, "When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy," New York Times, Feb 19, 2005, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [nytimes.com/2005/02/19/nyregion/when-child-support-is-due-even-the-poor-find-little-mercy.html?_r=0]

What are men supposed to do? If one thing goes wrong for him, he gets stuck in an endless loop of punishments that PREVENT him from paying what the feminist government is requiring him to pay. Even if he really wants to start working off the debt, they will not let him, almost as if the feminist-run government and courts have a desire to see men put in debtors' prisons for no other reason than to satisfy some vicious, power-hungry harpies.

I would like female readers to consider that you can get help from MANY sources by simply flashing a tearful eye. Men do not get that privilege because that is strictly FEMALE privilege.

Forbes reported that of all the alimony payments being made in the U.S., women are on the receiving end 97% of the time:
"Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners — suggesting that hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony, yet don't receive it... 'Gender equality is a relatively new concept in the span of history, and old stereotypes die hard,' says San Francisco Bay area divorce attorney Mark Ressa. 'A successful man is considered a breadwinning man, and asking for alimony is considered emasculating.'"
-Emma Johnson, "Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony?" Forbes, Nov 20, 2014, retrieved Apr 12, 2024, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/?sh=693738654b9c]

Men are FAR more benevolent to women than women are to men. If men need to make extra, they go out and make extra, but if women need to make extra, they demand it from men.

Imagine if a man drugged a woman, performed a surgery on her while she was asleep, stole an egg from her ovaries, used his sperm to fertilize that egg, and raised a child in his lab. Should he be able to sue her for child support payments?

If your answer was "No," then you are likely a somewhat reasonable person, but if you answered "Yes," then you agree with the feminist-operated U.S. government because men are not only held accountable for child support payments if they are raped by a woman, but also if a woman steals sperm from a man. Some readers might be surprised to learn that there have been court cases in which a man and woman engaged in sexual activity WITH a condom, and afterwards, the woman took the condom out of the trash, inserted the semen into her vagina, and impregnated herself WITHOUT his consent, but he was still held accountable for child support, as explained by the National Legal Research Group:
"In State v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 1997), the mother and father of the child for whom support was sought met in a hospital while the father was visiting an ill relative. The mother was a nurse's aide who had access to a variety of medical equipment. The mother offered to perform oral sex on the father, and, in the words of the father, 'as... any male would, I did not refuse.' The mother had the father wear a condom. The mother then removed the condom for the father and, unknown to the father, she inseminated herself with the father's sperm using a syringe in a nearby bathroom. The Louisiana court, noting that the probability of paternity was 99.9994%, held the father's testimony that he 'had some sort of sexual contact with the plaintiff around the time frame of alleged conception, although he denied that they had sexual intercourse' was sufficient to prove paternity. This fact of paternity obliges a father to support his child. In essence, because the father intentionally engaged in a sexual act resulting in his deposit of sperm with the mother, he was liable for child support."
-National Legal Research Group, "It's Ten O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Sperm Are? Toward A Strict Liability Theory of Parentage," 1999, retrieved Apr 12, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220628214002/https://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml]

This should be a lesson to men that if you encounter a woman who offers you sexual interaction like this, you should flree quckly. Women are not well-known to be trustworthy in these types of situations, and so if her over-30 biological clock is ticking, she is a ticking time bomb for the male victim she can baby trap.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
-1 Corinthians 6:18

The law is not fair or just to men in many such cases because a woman can lie, cheat, and steal, and he still has to pay for the consequences of her actions. The above article goes on to point out that a woman's fraud is irrelevant to force men into the child support slavery system, that the 14th Amendment's right to privacy in terms of family planning is NOT applied to men as it is to women, that underage boys are NOT exempt from responsibility to pay women, and even in cases of sperm donation without sexual intercourse, men are still liable:
"Is a man still liable for child support even if he does not engage in sexual intercourse with a woman but merely provides sperm for artificial insemination and agrees with the mother that there shall be no child support liability? Once again, the answer has been "yes." In these cases, the courts have uniformly held that, outside the strict requirements of the jurisdiction's statute governing artificial insemination, a mother simply cannot waive child support on behalf of the child and the father cannot waive his parental rights; such a contract is void as against public policy."
-National Legal Research Group, "It's Ten O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Sperm Are? Toward A Strict Liability Theory of Parentage," 1999, retrieved Apr 12, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220628214002/https://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml]

In my opinion, it is hilarious that it is called "paternal rights" when men so rarely get custody of their children. Women can easily use the courts to take children away from men, and the only "rights" men get in return is the right to be a slave for woman who births a child, and I emphasize "A child," not necessarily his child.

The article continues:
"Another case reaching the same result on facts that are, quite frankly, bizarre is S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). In that case, the father testified that he went to a party at the mother's house. He had been drinking for several hours before he arrived and had in fact gotten sick on the way to her house. At the mother's house, the father continued to drink, and the last thing he remembered was getting sick again and his brother putting him in bed at the mother's house. The next morning, the father awoke in that same bed with only his shirt on. The father did not remember having sex with the mother, and he did not knowingly and purposely have sex with her. The father's brother testified as to the same facts. A friend of both the father and the mother testified as to the same facts, plus the fact that about two months after the party the mother said she had had sex with the father while he was 'passed out' and that it had saved her a trip to the sperm bank. Another friend testified that the mother had said she had had sex with the father 'and he wasn't even aware of it.' A physician testified that it is possible that a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness may nevertheless have an erection and ejaculate; they are not conscious, voluntary activities. The father argued that, because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: The wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate [remove] the father's support obligation. The court also compared the father's argument to the arguments put forth in statutory rape cases, concluding that the 'rape' of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support... The lesson one can take from Frisard is simple: A man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up when he voluntarily engages in a sexual act. The lesson one must take from S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: A man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. [i.e. when he is raped] Instead of comparing the father's predicament with the mother's predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 38812 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan. 3, 1994) (1994.DE.19031 ), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation [on the man]. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm."
-National Legal Research Group, "It's Ten O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Sperm Are? Toward A Strict Liability Theory of Parentage," 1999, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml]

If a man rapes a woman, he is liable to pay her for child support. If a woman rapes a man, she is not liable to pay him for child support because of FEMALE privilege.

Young men are not being taught what the law and family courts are doing to them, and they NEED to know these things before getting involved with ANY woman, feminist or not. Young men need to know that you are held responsible, no matter the circumstance, and so I encourage you to do what may be difficult, and break off any dating relationship you may have with a woman if she shows any hint of feminism because if you marry and/or have children with her, and she decides to defraud you, you have little to no legal recourse.

I do want to take away the hope of young men to find a loyal wife because not all women are like this. There is hope, however, it requires a lot of discipline, to improve oneself to your maximum ability, to gain wisdom and understand from the Lord so you can discern the truth in others, and this is possible with hard work and dedication.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but
when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.
-Proverbs 13:12

Family courts are rarely just, and I believe that, for the most part, family court should not exist. But if we want some solutions that will begin to solve the problem quickly and efficiently, there is an easy fix to start the process of healing:

Eliminate State-Enforced Child Support

I can already hear the shrill outcry of fat, butch feminists, but we need state legislation to dissolve all laws, regulations, and agencies that force men to pay child support because it is a blight on our nation that is destroying households by incentivizing women to divorce their husbands and break up families. When feminists argue against this position, they use personal attacks (also known as the ad hominem fallacy), or they rely on a nonsensical argument called the "Exception Fallacy."

Here are some examples of the exception fallacy:

A waitress is rude to a man. Therefore, he concludes all waitresses are rude. A woman counters a drunk man who works as a taxi driver. Therefore, she concludes all taxis are operated by drunk drivers. A child is whipped by his school teacher. Therefore, he concludes all teachers are child abusers. A feminist hears about a man who refuses to work to pay for his children. Therefore, she concludes that all men are deadbeat dads.

As we have already seen, the statistics show that most men are willing to pay to provide for their children, and far more men pay for children than women do, which means, if anything, the law should be more strict on women than men, but FEMALE privilege gets in the way. The question we should be asking is NOT, "Should the government force men to pay child support?" but rather, "How do we get men to willingly pay for their children by their own free will?"

As all things in life, nothing is guaranteed, but as all things in life, there is a way to improve your odds of success. Thus, in order to answer the question, we simply need to ask a similar question: "How do I get a customer to frequent my place of business and spend money?"

If we simplify relationships between men and women, men (on average) are blessed with overall greater strength, speed, stamina, and intellect than women, which means that men have greater earning capability in the world than women do, which is why men are in the position of being the household provider. However, men are picky about where they spend their hard-earned money, and so women must find a man who is willing to invest his time and money into her, and that means women (despite what they have heard from irrational feminists) must start to view themselves and their bodies as a product or service in a free-market society, in which they entice men to WANT to spend money on her and their children.

So if you were running a restaurant, and you wanted to attract customers, what do you do? Obviously, it is going to require some hard work. You will need to improve how the restaurant looks, increase your skills in customer service, improve your attitude towards your customers, serve their needs, and produce quality products, creating an environment where the customer feels like he is welcomed, honored, and valued for eating at your restaurant.

So ladies, think of your potential as a wife like a business, and think of your husband as a customer, then ask yourself: "How do I get my husband to want to spend money on me and our children?" You must improve the look of your body, your home, and your children according to his desires, you must improve your service speed and efficiency, you must improve your attitude towards him to serve his needs, and you must produce quality products, so that he feels like he is welcomed, honored, and valued for spending money on his household.

Feminists HATE this concept because it requires them to be humble servants, to submit to the authority of man as God commanded women to do, and that is contrary to their man-hating and God-hating philosophy. They want men to grovel at the feet of feminists, pay for all their living expenses like slaves, so feminists can live as queens in their imaginary kingdom, ruling over the peasant they despise, or in other words, feminists are lazy, useless, self-entitled witches, who lie, cheat, scream, and manipulate others to get what responsible homemaking wives and mothers get naturally, but without having to work for it.


Of course, feminists always use the exception fallacy to point to a tiny minority of women who have been raped, gotten pregnant, and gave birth, then ask me if those men should be forced to pay child support? My answer is a resounding "No." Why? The woman can put her child up for adoption if she does not want to be fiscally responsible, and there is a long waiting list of parents wanting to adopt.

If she decides to keep her baby, and raise the child to be an upstanding citizen, she should NOT be allowed to go to the government to force others (at gunpoint) to pay her. Rather, she should ask for charity from family, friends, neighbors, churches, and charities, which is the Constitutional approach.

The vast majority of single mothers in the U.S. have CHOSEN to be single, and are using family courts to destroy men, to pay the living expenses of a woman who hates him and children he never gets to see. It is both pathetic and cruel, and it is shameful on a morally-bankrupt country that they would reward malicious, lying women because they did not want to do the work to be a loyal, submissive, kind, pleasant, beautiful, and helpful women, to appeal to a man's motivation, by which he would desire to spend his time and money in his home with his family.

This free-market (no state regulation) approach would encourage husbands and wives to stay married and work out their problems together, but feminists hate that thought. Men in our society are expected to work themselves to death to be good husbands, but in our degraded American society, women are not taught to work hard to be good wives, and so if we want men to want to pay for their wives and children, it would be better that we not only give them the liberty of making that choice for themselves, but we should also take away women's option and incentive to break up the family and turn the man into little more than a slave.

In her aforementioned book, Angela Confidential points out that women are "winning" some sort of illusionary war she perceives:
"In a word, these DAMN [Destroy a Man Now] methods work because women are winning! Moreover, we're doing it by turning male oppressors own patriarchy against them. Women have gained more power than men while society still operates like we are powerless victims. In this way, women benefit from both the virtues of victimhood and the power of the oppressor. We also do it openly, hidden in plain sight by patriarchy's selective blindness to women."
(See Angela Confidential, How to Destroy a Man Now [DAMN]: A Handbook, Lemons to Lemonade Publishing, 2018, p. 54, ISBN: 9780999820322)

As we learned at the beginning of the chapter, women are able to do this by simply speaking a single word, and that word is "abuse."



 

We all know the general story we have seen time and again in the media: A man is physically abusive to a woman in the household, and she keeps her mouth shut about it, both out of fear that no one will believe her, and to protect the family. Of course, there is some truth to this because some women have experienced it, and in those instances, I want the woman to get help, but this is the exception, not the rule, or in other words, these types of cases are a small percentage of domestic abuse cases, not the majority.

As we learned in the previous chapter, all a woman has to do is drop the word 'abuse', and she is given so much privilege, it should be called power. Outside of queens and princesses, can you think of another example in which one person can destroy another person with a single word?

Before we dive into the details, we should define these terms. In the last chapter, we learned that the word 'abuse' simply means the "wrong or improper use of something or someone," and the word 'domestic' relates to households and families:

domestic (adj): of or relating to the home, the household, household affaairs, or the family
(See 'domestic', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Thus, domestic abuse would be generally defined as the wrong use of things relating to the home and family. As we are about to learn, women are more often guilty of domestic abuse, but men are far more often held responsible for it, whether he is guilty of it or not.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines domestic violence as:
"[A] pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner."
-U.S. Department of Justice, "Domestic Violence," retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence]

The following is the definition of 'domestic violence' provided by lawyer Gerald Hill and columnist Kathleen Hill from dictionary.law.com:

domestic violence (n): the continuing crime and problem of the physical beating of a wife, girlfriend or children, usually by the woman's male partner... Sometimes a woman's dependence, low self-esteem and fear of leaving cause her to endure this conduct or fail to protect a child. Prosecutors and police often face the problem that a battered woman will not press charges or testify due to fear, intimidation and misplaced "love."
(See 'domestic violence', The People's Law Dictionary, retrieved Sept 16, 2016 [dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=571])

Although the Hills add that "it can also be female violence against a male," it is an afterthought because they state at the beginning that it is a MAJORITY male crime against women and children. I have no argument against the existence of male abusers, but as we can see, men are typically excluded from being listed as victims in abuse definitions.

Since many feminists hide behind a disguise of "equality," I decided to go to feminist.com to see if I could find anything concerning men being abused. For an organization that advertises "women & men as allies" and "#EnvisionEquality," I could not find a single article on their site that did not portray men as little less than terrorists.

For example, in one of their articles, a list of generalized abuses was provided in which all the examples given were from the woman's perspective. It would say "I have been kicked in the abdomen... while I was pregnant" or "I have been threatened when he's had a bad day," but not a word about women abusing men because, in the eyes of feminists, women can do no wrong, or in other words, feminists have investigated themselves and determined that they are guilty of nothing.
(See Feminist.com, "Domestic Violence/Battering," retrieved Apr 16, 2024, [https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/viol_dom.html])

In another section of their website, they refer to a Women's E-News article called "To Prevent Violence, Insist Men Stop the Abuse," which says:
"It makes little sense to place the burden of preventing violence on the woman. Why 'insist' she seek safety instead of emphatically and unambiguously demanding violent men stop abusing?"
-Rob Okun, "To Prevent Violence, Insist Men Stop the Abuse," Wenews, Aug 22, 2011, retrieved Apr 16, 2024, [https://womensenews.org/2011/08/prevent-violence-insist-men-stop-the-abuse/]

As we can see, this was written under the assumption that only men abuse women, and women are the innocent, perfect models of all that is good in society. However, the truth is quite different because in most cases, men and women abuse each other equally, but in the minority of those cases, in which only one person is the cause of the abuse, the majority of those are female abusers against the a male.

Unbiased studies looking at the objective facts are not common (as of 2024) because they do not look favorably on women, and in a gynocentric society, there are few willing to pay the money needed to hire researchers to do the work. However, there was a California State University investigation into domestic violence, and the findings will be surprising to readers who have only heard the mainstream feminist narrative:
"This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600."
-Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, retrieved Apr 16, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160823181923/web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]; See also [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-013-9194-1]

This bibliography showed hundreds of case studies, which contained hundreds of thousands of individual cases, that found women have been at fault for the majority of domestic violence. As I said before, most of the cases involved men and women beating each other at the same time, but when it comes to only one instigator of violence, the violent party is more often the woman than the man, even though women in the media are almost completely excluded from fault.

The reason for this is because those without strength often lash out in desperation more than those with strength, and that problem becomes worse when the one without strength is more emotional. People are not known to make rational decisions when they are angry, nervous, fearful, or vindictive, and so in most cases, the first person to physically lash out is the one who is the most emotional and has the least amount of strength.

If female readers do not understand this, let's suppose two adult men in a park walked directly up to you, started calling you names, and started pushing you; it would be a reasonable and normal reaction to get out your gun, your pepper spray, or at the very least, throw your purse at them and run away. However, let's suppose two young boys (about five-years-old) walked directly up to you, started calling you names and pushing you, would your first reaction be to get out your gun, pepper spray, or hit them with your purse?

In most cases, women would not react violently against little children who are clearly not a threat. Likely, you might firmly demand, "Where is your mother?!" and put a stop to the situation immediately because, against five-year-olds, women have more strength and authority.

So comparatively, when facing someone with more strength and authority, a woman is more likely to attack, but when facing someone with less strength and authority, she is less likely to attack. This same principle applies with men as it does with women, meaning that if a man is facing a woman, who is obviously weaker than him, he is less likely to attack her because he knows she is not a threat to him, but on the other hand, the woman is more likely to attack the man because she is powerless otherwise.

Obviously, I cannot go through the hundreds of case studies in this book alone, but let's take a look at a few of the cases in the bibliography:

A 1992 study showed that, out of a sample size of 865 college students surveyed, women were most often found to be the initiators of the physical violence. A 2005 study surveyed 236 people (56% women, 44% men) and found that in both dating and marriage, women had higher levels of hostility towards men than men towards women. (Also note that more women were surveyed than men in this study, which means the outcome should have heavily favored women if they were less violent.) A 1999 study investigated other studies referred to by mainstream media that portrayed women as the recipients of domestic violence. Those studies showed that the fake news media lied about the incident to favor women, and that the instances of abuse in those cases were equal violence between both the man and the woman in the relationships, but the part about the woman's violence against the man was censored. A 2006 study surveyed college students (457 men and 958 women) about alcohol-related violence, and despite the fact that twice as many women were surveyed, 26% of women (1:4) reported being victims, while 35.4% of men (1:3) reported to be victims. (i.e. They found college girls are much more likely to be violent when drunk.) A 1986 study analyzed male-dominated relationships (i.e. the man is head of the household) versus female-dominated relationships (i.e. the woman is head of the household), and found physical violence was greater in female-dominated relationships than male-dominated. A 2005 study collected data from 11,000 students (70% women) from 50 universities in 21 countries and found that even though injuries against women were more severe than men, women more often initiated violence against men. The American Psychological Association reviewed studies in literature and found that, "Women are just as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners," and the research "casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation for why women kill their male partners." A 2008 study conducted a telephone survey of 800 people that let them listen in on a staged equal fight between a man and woman with equal injuries to one another; up to 80% of test subjects were more likely to condemn and blame the man than the woman. A 1995 study surveyed 290 college students (111 men, 179 women) and found that 24.9% of men (less than 1-in-4) initiated violence against women, and 38.5% women (more than 1-in-3) initiated violence against men. A 1996 study surveyed 114 male and 118 female high school students in dating relationships, who were asked about moderately abusive behavior such as "being kicked, slapped, having your hair pulled, and being intentionally scratched," and found that 50.9% of the subjects had experienced this, with 63% (nearly two-thirds) of those being male victims of violence from female abusers.

(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, retrieved Apr 16, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160823181923/web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]; See also [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-013-9194-1])

Of course, some of the cases showed a greater percentage of violence against women, but that is something which is common knowledge. It is all we ever hear about in the media, even in fictional books and movies. However, I would challenge readers to find any mainstream media reports talking about the violence of women against men because we almost never hear about female violence against males.

Everywhere I have ever lived, I always saw a social standard of thinking in both men and women that it is wrong to physically strike a woman. I have never met any man who thought it was acceptable to hit his mother, sister, wife, or girlfriend. However, what I have seen (and experienced) is that it is acceptable for a woman to strike a man, knowing that he cannot (or will not) strike back, and also because women know he will not report the women for the abuse, not only because it is seen as emasculating if he reports her, but also because, in most cases, men are not believed, or worse, they are mocked for it.

This creates a strange paradox when we listen to feminists in the mainstream fake news because they tell us the exact opposite. I have always been told that I should not believe my lying eyes and simply trust the feminist narrative that striking a woman is socially-acceptable under the oppressive "patriarchy," but if we truly lived in a "male privilege" society, it is a miraculous wonder why domestic abuse against boys and men is almost never talked about.

A good example of this was exposed by documentary film maker Cassie Jaye in a controversial film called The Red Pill, named after the "red pill" from the movie, The Matrix, in which the protagonist has to choose between the blue pill that will keep him indoctrinated in the system that has him inslaved, or take the red pill that will free him by opening his eyes to the hard truths he will have difficulty accepting. Although I am not in agreement with some of the thoughts and opinions of those in the "Red Pill Movement," I do commend them for pushing the truth against the feminist narrative, exposing their vicious ideology, and exposing the harsh reality of a system rigged against men.

Australian feminists railed and yowled over Cassie's film, and she was left wondering why they were so angry; not in the sense that she did not know the reason (i.e. that feminists are just selfish, screaming fools), but in the sense that she knows almost none of them watched the film:
CASSIE: "I'm curious what is different about Australia makes this topic so polarizing and so fearful to people that they want to actually shut it down and silence it, pull it from theaters, I'm not sure why there's so much resistance in Australia."
FEMALE NEWS HOST: "Cassie, I think it could be due to the fact that a couple of years ago, our Australian of the Year was a mom who lost her only son at the hands of his father in a domestic violence incident... it's really on the agenda here in Australia, it's not tolerated, and we're really trying to move forward and get it on a path where women aren't dying; I think that's why your film has hit a nerve."
CASSIE: "And it was his son that passed?"
FEMALE NEWS HOST: "It was her son who was killed by his father."
CASSIE: "I didn't know about that, but that is interesting because it shows there are male victims of domestic violence."
-Cassie Jaye, "The Project -- 08 Jun 2017 -- Cassie Jaye," June 10, 2017, retrieved Apr 16, 2024, [https://youtu.be/WopXnlgk7SE?si=1-0g0B0FSOI2ojgR&t=43]

Because mainstream corporate media has to keep talking to avoid dead air time (so they do not lose ratings), the 1.5 seconds of silence after Cassie pointed out their hypocrisy was deafening. The news host pointed to a male victim and then said they were focusing on moving to a place where "WOMEN aren't dying." Very tactfully, Cassie pointed out that the tragedy was a men's issue in which a boy was the victim, but the feminist-controlled media managed to transform it into a women's issue, and people just blindly followed their lead.

There is a U.S. Department of Justice office called "The Office of Violence Against Women," in which they offer all sorts of assistance and information on domestic violence to help women. However, not only is there no "Office of Violence Against Men," but (in 2016, when I wrote the first edition of this book) I decided to do an internet search for violence against men, and one of the first options in the list was a "womenshealth.gov" website (yes, a women's website for men), and most of the page consisted of help for VIOLENT MEN to get counseling on how prone to violence they are as males, and what men should do in preventing themselves from becoming violent.
(See Office on Women's Health, "Men's Health," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, retrieved Sept 15, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160728001915/http://womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men/])

To be clear, the U.S. Government assistance website for women entitled "Men's Health" spends most of the page talking about how much violence men commit, and in the very small section which addresses violence against men, it never mentions women being the instigators of the violence. They ONLY talk about male-on-male violence. In fact, it ends by telling men that they should find out more information about controlling their presumed-to-be naturally violent and rape-like urges by going to the WOMEN'S section on violence against women:
"Womenshealth.gov's section on violence against women will provide you with information on dating and sexual violence, stalking, and elder abuse, including specific resources on how to get help."
-Office on Women's Health, "Men's Health," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, retrieved Sept 15, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160728001915/http://womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men/]

Even in 2024, when searching for "violence against men" on the official government website, I cannot find anything talking about men being abused by women. The only results I could find were to "engage men and boys as allies in the prevention of violence against women and girls."
(See Aisha Battle, OVW FY2023 Grants to Engage Men and Boys as Allies in the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls Program," retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/1575001/download])

For this reason, men's rights organizations have started to form over the past decade, but mostly because men, especially white men (due to this generation's racism against white people), are not getting any help for the abuse they suffer, and as we will see in a moment, men are sometimes arrested by police for even speaking up about abuse against them. Dr. Murray Straus testified at a June 2006 meeting of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men:
"Straus, co-director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire, recently completed an international study on partner violence among university students. His queries of more than 13,600 students revealed that the most common instance of partner violence is mutual abuse. The second most common situation of partner violence is when the female is the perpetrator against the male, he said. This leaves the reverse — when males abuse females — to be the least common in practice, although the most common in publicity. 'I have a long-term prevention goal that I hope my research will make a contribution to,' Murray said prior to the meeting at which he was asked to testify. He added that it's not enough to provide services for the battered, and that the solution is to stop the aggressive behavior in the first place. He said it's possible to stop half of abuse by making it as reprehensible for a woman to slap a man as it for a man to hit a woman. 'If we want men to stop it,' he said. 'Women have to stop it also.'"
-Men's Activism, "Dr. Murray Straus Testifies Before the NH CSM," July 5, 2006, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://news.mensactivism.org/?q=node/5649]

As Strous pointed out, in the United States, domestic violence against women is the LEAST common case, and women being the sole perpetrator of violence against men is the MOST common case. The actual numbers of Straus's study were 13,601 students surveyed, most of which were women (71.5% women, 28.5% men), at 68 universities in 32 countries, and found that mutual violence (in which both the male and female physically attacked each other) accounted for 68.6% of the surveys, men-only violence 9.9% of the time, and women-only violence 21.4% of the time, showing that women were more than twice as likely to be the sole instigators of domestic abuse than men.
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 32, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140720173645/http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/130508-male-and-female-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence.pdf])

Because women are statically much more likely to be abusive, this leaves us with curious questions that have not yet been answered in these studies. For example, since women are more likely to be the sole abuser, how many mutual-abuse cases were the men defending themselves from her attacks, but listed as an "abuser" anyway?

Outraged feminists will claim that the women in the 21% only strike a man in self-defense from "emotional abuse" or other such nebulus excuses, but these statistics were simply asking the basic questions about experiences with instigation of violence, and in dating circumstances, it is the women who initiate more than men in abuse cases. (In marriage, most cases show about equal violence from men and women.) The mutual violence cases are also abuse, but sadly, the victim status is almost always given to the woman by default, and even if the woman has seriously injured the man, FEMALE privilege makes it so the woman will almost never have to suffer consequences for it.

What are some of the reasons for physical violence in dating or marriage? According to a study done by Claxton-Oldfield and Arsenault in 1999, a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates who had initiated physical aggression towards their male partner said the most common reason for it was "because partner was not listening to them."
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 6, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140720173645/http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/130508-male-and-female-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence.pdf])

Complaining that a man is "not listening to her" is not a valid justification for self-defense because causing physical harm in that case is called "assault and battery," which normally has serious charges, but very few women are ever prosecuted for it. If feminists think that attacking a man for "not listening" is a valid excuse, then let's reverse the roles: Would it be acceptable for a man to punch a woman because she was not listening to him?

Women getting away with doing things that men are not allowed to do is FEMALE privilege.

The feminist-controlled media typically tells us that women are not reporting rapes (which is not true, as we will learn later), and that it is because women feel like they will not be believed, or that they fear reprisal [retaliation] against them for the report, or that they do not believe the police would do anything to help. However, a 2005 study (R.B. Felson & P. Pare) analyzed data from The National Violence Against Women Survey, and found that "male victims are particularly reluctant to report assaults by their female partners," and their reasons for not reporting female domestic violence included "fear of reprisal, thought that the police could do nothing to help and charges would not be believed," which means what the media tells us about women actually applies to men far more than it does to women.
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 10, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140720173645/http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/130508-male-and-female-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence.pdf])

Perhaps some of you might be asking yourselves: Why do men fear retaliation from women? What will a woman do to him? Remember D.A.M.N. (Destroy a Man Now) and Silver Bullet Divorce we covered in the last chapter? If a woman finds out that a man has gone to the police about her physical abuse, whether or not he laid a hand on her in self-defense, and no matter how serious his injuries, all a woman has to do is say, "he started it" or "it was self-defense," and because of FEMALE privilege, the man is automatically arrested and assumed guilty until proven innocent.

There are a surprising number of women who knowingly take advantage of men because they understand men will not or cannot retaliate, and this was shown in a 1997 Psychological Reports study by Fiebert & Gonzalez surveyed a sample size of 968 college-age women, documenting reasons women gave for initiating physical violence against their male partners. The study found that 68% (more than 2 out of 3) of domestic violence cases in college dating relationships were instigated by women, and also said that "women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally."
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 10, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140720173645/http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/130508-male-and-female-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence.pdf])

The following is a more expanded list from the study of reasons why abusive women provided for physically attacking men:

I believe women are in charge in a domestic situation and have the right to strike their partners if they break the rules. I have found that most men have been trained not to hit a woman, and therefore I am not fearful of retaliation from my partner. I have seen and admired women in the movies, and on TV, who strike their partners. I believe it is important and healthy to physically express anger particularly in a personal relationship. I sometimes find when I express my anger physically I become turned on sexually. My mother would, at times, be physically aggressive to my father or my stepfather. I learned when growing up that I could be physically aggressive toward my brother and he would not fight back. I believe if women truly are equal to men then women should be able to physically express anger at men. I feel personally empowered when I behave aggressively against my partner. I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don't worry when I become physically aggressive.

(See M.S. Fiebert & D.M. Gonzalez, "College Women Who Initiate Assaults on Their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior," Psychological Reports, 1997, DOI:10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.583, retrieved Apr 25, 2024, [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/College-Women-Who-Initiate-Assaults-on-Their-Male-Fiebert-Gonzalez/a82a430ababfc937132fd239fbfdb4f6d832ad5d])

I want readers to imagine the public outrage that would ensue if men were to give these excuses. What if a man said that he thought he had the right to punch her because she would not hit back? What if a man said he hit her because he admired a fictional TV character who did it? What if a man said he kicked her in the stomach because he thought it was healthy to express his anger? What if a man said he gave her a black eye because it was sexually stimulating? What if a man said he cut her with a knife because that is the way his father treated his mother? What if a man said he gave her a bloody lip because he used to do it to his sister? Judges in court would give those men the maximum punishment possible, but men suffer this from women, and women mostly go unpunished for their crimes because of FEMALE privilege.

If a woman does not get her way, and the man gets tired of listening to her complain, her reaction is to hit him, throw something at him, or threaten him with a weapon. Women often react irrationally in those situations because they were not disciplined properly by their fathers, family, schools, and communities at a young age.

Young men are often disciplined to control themselves and their emotions because they will grow to have great strength, and with great strength comes great responsibility. For example, a man with a gun is a great asset when he is trained how to use it, and disciplined to use it only when there is no other course of action, but put a gun in the hands of a man who has no discipline, and casualties will follow.

On the other hand, young girls are not expected to have great strength, and therefore, they are not commonly trained to discipline themselves, which is why the above study discovered that the women "did not believe that their male victims would be injured." Thus, in order for a woman to have proper discipline, to fulfill her feminine role in the household and society, she needs to put herself under the authority of man, whether that be a father, brother, or husband, to bring her into a disciplined state of mind for those things she does not understand or is too weak to handle.

That being said, simple logic, with little thought, should indicate to anyone that hitting someone does not mean that you will get the attention that you want. Such things will only breed negative attention, but sadly, in many cases, such people want any attention they can get, even if it is negative. No matter if the aggressor is a man or a woman, people who do such things are controlling and manipulative, however, only male aggressors cause protests and riots, but female aggressors are mostly ignored.

Also notice that, in the above study, women admitted that they KNEW that the men they were abusing would not retaliate against them, and thus, these women are bullies and cowards that attack others who they believe they can use as a punching bag without consequences. In other words, she uses the man who cares and provides for her as nothing more than a slave, and a whipping boy to be beaten at her pleasure.

However, she has to make sure that he will not retaliate because she knows she could not win a fight with a man, and that, if he so chose, he could take back his authority over her and/or leave her anytime. Remember that at the beginning of this book, I defined feminism as "the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices," and thus, she needs to manipulate and control him without consequences because if he institutes consequences, she will do everything in her ability to avoid them, even if it means legally burning him at the stake.

I know of women who would treat their pets with more decency than they would treat her man. She would not beat her dog or cat to gain emotionally attention, but she will beat a man to acheive the same goal.

In our culture, we have a general understanding that, in a healthy marriage between a man and a woman, it only takes him slapping her across the face one time to create a relational chasm between them. A bridge of trust can be rebuilt with time and patience, but it only take one instance of physical violence, and it can take years to rebuild that broken bridge, so why is it that women think men do not react the same way?

Why is it that a woman thinks she can slap a man across the face, and she will not have to suffer the same consequences? Just as a sociopath views the general public as little more than insects or bacteria, which leaves them without natural affection, so likewise, when a woman sees a man as less than a brute beast, not as a person with a heart and mind, she has no compassion for him, and he becomes her slave to be used and discarded when she chooses.

Despite what feminists might tell us, men get physically injured by women, and it happens more often than we thing because it is common for men to NOT report female violence to law enforcement because it is embarrassing and makes him look weak. The U.S. National Library of Medicine published a study that found a significant number of emergency room injuries (surveyed over the course of 13 weeks) that were a result of female domestic violence:
"Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year. Victims were more likely to be younger, single, African American, and uninsured. The most common forms of assault were slapping, grabbing, and shoving (60.6% of victims). These were followed by choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%). Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon... Almost 13% of men in this sample population had been victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the previous year. Further attention to the recognition and management of domestic violence committed by women against men may be warranted."
-C.C. Mechem, "History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department," August, 1999, PMID: 10463549, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10463549/]

More studies need to be done into this subject because of how little men report female-instigated domestic violence, but sadly, very little has been studied because all the money and attention goes to state-subsidized feminism. According to this study, 81% of the male victims did NOT contact the police to file a report, and the typical reason for that is because men know they will be humilated if it gets out, and they will not be believed in most cases because the police will not do anything to help the man unless he brings extremely thorough evidence, or in other words, as long as the man does the police's job for them.

For example, Roby Johnson's wife Melody attempted to kill him by poisoning him. She would pour a bottle cap full of bleach into the coffee pot every morning, and Roby began to notice that his coffee tasted odd, so he set up cameras to see what she was doing.

He caught her on camera pulling bleach out from underneath the sink, and pouring it into the coffee maker. Roby took the video the police in hopes they would press charges, but they said they could not determine what was being poured into the machine.

A woman could have simply went to the police, without any evidence, cried "abuse" and had her husband arrested and charged, but Roby had to purchase many more hidden cameras, including cameras disguised as fire alarms, to catch Melody in the act of poisoning his coffee. He caught her on camera from multiple angels, tested the water in the coffee pot on camera with chemical strips to confirm the bleach, even going so far as to catch her doing it in two different households, and only then would the police take him seriously.
(See Law & Crime Network, "She Was Caught Poisoning Her Husband's Coffee with Bleach," Apr 10, 2024, retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VyC-gnRJoI])

Another interesting note is that Melody plead guilty to serve only a maximum of four years in prison for the attempted murder of her husband, and this demonstrates the biased in favor of women in the court system which I mentioned in chapter two. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), simply hiring a hit man (without any injury or death of the target) is a maximum of ten years in prison, but when a woman does it, she is given far more leniency because of her FEMALE privilege.
-SBBL Law, "Murder-for-Hire Charges," retrieved Apr 17, 2024, [https://sbbllaw.com/resources/murder-for-hire]

Let's look at a few more sample cases from the aforementioned California State investigation bibliography:

A 1997 study (M.D. Gonzalez) surveyed 225 college women and found that 55% admitted to initiating physical violence against their male partner, the most common reason being that she was simply frustrated. A 2007 study (E.L. Hettrich & K.D. O'Leary) surveyed 446 dating college women and found that 32 admitted to initiating physical violence against their male partner, the most common reason being anger and poor communication. A 1989 study (I. Arias & P. Johnson) surveyed 103 male and 99 female undergraduates for their opinions on physical violence in relationships, and found that "a significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful."

The study confirmed exactly what I said earlier, namely, that most men do not think it is ever acceptable to hit a women, even in self-defense. Most women said it was a justified reason, but the problem that many of these women do not understand (or do not care about) is that if the man defends himself, he is the one who is punished, and I will show some examples of that soon.

Denise Hines, research assistant psychology professor at Clark University and research associate at the University of New Hampshire's Family Research Laboratory and Crimes Against Children Research Center, presented her findings while studying what happens to men when they call domestic violence hotlines:
"Hines' study included 302 heterosexual men, ages 18 to 59, who had been in a relationship lasting at least one month within the previous year, had been physically assaulted by their female partners within the previous year, and had sought outside assistance/support. The median age of the abused men was 40, and the median age of their abusive female partners was 38. The relationships had lasted on average a little over eight years, and 73% of them had minor [under-age] children. About two-thirds were married, separated, or divorced. Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they 'only helped women.' In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers' programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers' program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped. Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as 'very helpful,' whereas 69% found them to be 'not at all helpful.' Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line 'dismissed or made fun of them.'"
-Phillip O'Sullivan, Defeating Feminist False Rape Industry, Lulu Press Inc, 2016, ISBN: 9781329947948; See also National Parents Organization, "Researcher: What Happens When Abused Men Call Domestic Violence Hotlines And Shelters?" retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160807162648/nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977]

A "batterers' program" is a counseling group designed to help violent men control their anger so they will not hit women, and thus, the results of this study showed that the "she-is-not-believed" and "she-is-not-helped" feminist narrative does not reflect reality in the majority of cases. Most of the time, women have ready access to many avenues of support, but it is uncommon that men can get support because men are mostly not believed, not helped, and even mocked for reporting female abuse.

Hines also reported what some of the men had said about their experience calling a domestic abuse hotline. As you read the following testimonies from men reporting abuse, keep in mind that the feminist-controlled fake news media has pushed an ad nauseam narrative (i.e. repeated to a ridiculous degree) that abused women are mocked, not helped, and not believed:

"They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all." "They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me... I was told by this agency that I was full of BS." "They told me women don't commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault." "They accused me of trying to hide my 'abuse' of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp." "They just laughed and hung up the phone." "They didn't really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them."

If we lived in a society of a "patriarchy" that facilitated "male privileges," then why are men not automatically believed? Why are they not given many avenues of assistance? Why are there not as many abused-male hotlines as there are abused-female hotlines? Why are men mocked for reporting violent women?

Imagine if the roles were reversed, in which an abuse hotline took a call from a female victim, laughed at them, and gave them a reference number to a local gym so she could lose weight, or gave her a number to culinary school to improve her domestic skills. What do you think would happen? The media and government would do the most in-depth investigation, there would be coast-to-coast outrage and protest, and lawsuits would rain down on the hotline's organization, but if it happens to a man, nobody cares because (currently) there is only FEMALE privilege in the USA.

However, it is not just America because other countries have this problem too. The following images are screenshots I took from Western Australia's Department for Child Protection and Family Support back in 2016, which compares the women's hotline with the men's hotline.

The section of the website for women says: "This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence."
-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "Women's Domestic Violence Helpline," Government of Western Australia, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160802182222/dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Women's-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx]

However, the section of the website for men is a bit different in its wording:
"This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours."
-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "Men's Domestic Violence Helpline," Government of Western Australia, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160803002521/dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Men's-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx]

Notice that the word 'support' was removed from the men's section of the website. This is because the unspoken official position of the matriarchal, feminist-controlled government is that men do not need, and do not deserve, support; they just have to pay the majority of taxes (as we learned in chapter two), while women get the majority of the benefits.

To their credit, at the end of the page, they did say they have information and support for men who have experienced domestic violence, but let's look at the PDF fact sheets they provide. These are the covers to the fact sheets for the "support" information they provide for women and men, from the same sources I just referenced: (Click Image for Larger View)
The cover for the woman asks her if she has been hurt, gently asking her to consider if she is a victim, and offers information about domestic violence that may have been committed against her. The cover for the man outright accuses him on the presumption that he hurts not just women, but also makes him out to be a default child abuser, and focuses on getting him training to stop abusive his wife and children.

To be fair, the men's domestic violence section had two PDFs instead of just one, and at first glance it seems like men might get some help because the other booklet is called "How to Deal with Domestic Violence," however, reading the subtitle gives more details because it says "A Self-Help Booklet for Men Who Want to Change." This presumes that all women are automatic victims, and that all men are presumed to be evil aggressors who must "help themselves" to not be so evil.

"If you're reading this booklet, it's probably because: you're worried about how your behaviour is affecting your children or you've seen your own behaviour in your kids; you're feeling pretty bad about some things you've said or done to your partner; you're worried she might leave you; or she's just left you and you're worried she won't come back... Perhaps you have recently hurt your partner? Maybe she has left you? You might be overwhelmed by feelings of anger, guilt, loss or fear of a future without her. Do you worry about the effect of your violence on your kids? Perhaps you haven't hurt your partner, but you're worried that you will?"

-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "How to Deal With Domestic Violence: A Self-Help Booklet for Men Who Want to Change," Government of Western Australia, p.2, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/2015/Howdodealwithdomesticviolencebooklet.pdf]

I could not help but chuckle when I read this because it is clear that this booklet was written by a dimwitted feminist who does not have any clue about men's issues, because the first suggestion is that if a man is reading the booklet, he is "probably" (i.e. he is most likely) reading it because he is evil. Not only is he "probably" vile and toxic to all those around him, but because he is male, he is "probably" guilty of thought crimes, in which he may not have physically harmed anyone, but he is "probably" thinking about it because of his toxic masculinity.

If you thought my accusation about thought crimes was too harsh of a criticism, the introduction to this men's "self-help" document provided a mock story about Adrian and Phillipa, and said, "Adrian realised that his behaviour towards Phillipa was abusive. Just because he hadn't hit her, it didn't mean he wouldn't in the future." Translated, this is saying, "Just because you have not beat her yet, you probably will because you are evil." Not only is it rare for men to get assistance when they are in a relationship with abusive female, in the process of getting help, he will constantly be told that he is toxic, evil, and genetically predisposed to physical violence in his household and marriage.

In the United States, we have a "Violence Against Women Act" that has encouraged states to pass laws to make it mandatory for police officers to arrest someone whenever there is a domestic abuse call, which by-passes U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment right to first having probable cause via a court-ordered warrant. A randomized experiment conducted in Minnesota claimed that these new laws reduced domestic violence cases, and of course, the feminists cheered, but the problem is that the experiment was conducted while the "forced-arrest" law was still optional (meaning that the police were NOT forced to make an arrest), so there is no way they could get a proper statistical analysis of the new law when it was NOT in full effect, and the reality is that the law has actually increased domestic homicides:
"Domestic violence remains a major public policy concern despite two decades of policy intervention. To eliminate police inaction in response to domestic violence, many states have passed mandatory arrest laws, which require the police to arrest abusers when a domestic violence incident is reported. These laws were justified by a randomized experiment in Minnesota which found that arrests reduced future violence. This experiment was conducted during a time period when arrest was optional. Using the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, I find mandatory arrest laws actually increased intimate partner homicides... This study therefore provides evidence that these laws may have perverse effects on intimate partner violence, harming the very people they seek to help."
-Radha Iyengar, "Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence From Mandatory and Recommended Arrest Laws," National Bureau of Economic Research, June, 2007, p. 2, retrieved Apr 18, 2024, [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13186/w13186.pdf]; Image from same source, p. 23.

The same study pointed out that the American Bar Association used to urge police NOT to arrest anyone unless there was a credible threat to someone's safety:
"Historically, law enforcement has been reluctant to arrest or even intervene in cases of domestic violence. In fact in the 1970s, the American Bar Association (1973) urged police to use conflict resolution, not arrests, when intervening in 'conflicts... which occur between husband and wife.'"
-Radha Iyengar, "Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence From Mandatory and Recommended Arrest Laws," National Bureau of Economic Research, June, 2007, p. 3, retrieved Apr 18, 2024, [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13186/w13186.pdf]

This makes sense because unlawful arrests used to result in the city being sued, but nowadays, in domestic violence cases, men often do not have the means or precident to sue the city for such a violation of Constitutional rights due to unconstitutional regulations. Furthermore, by the time justice could be served, his reputation and business is destroyed, and he has lost his family and income in a divorce battle, which is why these types of domestic disputes have traditionally been handled by the community (i.e. neighbors and friends) and/or local religious institutions, meaning that people who know the couple well can help mediate for them, and bring shame on the guilty party for not doing the right thing.

As of 2024, many states have laws that require police to arrest someone in a domestic abuse call, even if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed, and even if the caller lied about being abused, which violates Constitutional due process law. For example, a woman could call the police and claim she was being physically abused by her husband, and then after the police arrive, she could explain to them that she lied because she just wanted to get back at her husband, but the police are required to arrest the man anyway.

To clarify, calling 911 emergency services and lying to them about an emergency is a the most serious form of misdemeanor, and can even be bumped up to a felony depending on the seriousness of the situation. For example, here in Indiana where I live, falsely reporting an emergency (IN Code § 35-44.1-2-3) is a Class A Misdemeanor, which can result in up to a year in jail and fines, but in a state where law enforcement is required to arrest someone when the woman has made a false emergency report, she is rarely prosecuted for the crime because the man is assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Alaska's mandatory arrest law says:
"(a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this section, a peace officer, with or without a warrant, shall arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has, either in or outside the presence of the officer, within the previous 12 hours, (1) committed domestic violence... A peace officer is not required to make an arrest under (a) of this section if the officer has received authorization not to arrest from a prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction in which the offense under investigation arose."
-Justia US Law, "Mandatory arrest for crimes involving domestic violence, violation of protective orders, and violation of conditions of release," AK Stat § 18.65.530 (2018), retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/2018/title-18/chapter-65/article-7/section-18.65.530/]

What is considered probable cause? That has always been a subjective and debated issue in court. If the women is acting afraid and begging the officer with tears in her eyes, that could be considered "probable cause" even if the man has knife wounds because she will say those were in "self-defense." An arrest of a man is made solely on the claim of probable cause, he is taken to jail, and meanwhile, the woman is free to tell all her family, friends, and neighbors that he was arrested for abusing her, and destroys his reputation without getting the chance to defend himself.

In order to NOT arrest a man in this circumstance, an officer has to have special permission from a "prosecuting attorney," and to clarify, that does NOT mean his defense attorney. It means an attorney on the side of the woman has to give permission to an officer not to arrest the man, and thus, domestic violence cases have increased the number of domestic homicides since these laws were put into place, or in other words, the laws that feminists have pushed into our government to reduce domestic violence have actually made the problem worse by leading to more serious domestic violence.

If you want to understand why domestic homicides are increasing after these gynocentric statutes were put in place, imagine for a moment a man who is beaten by his wife on a regular basis, but he does not want to hit her back, and so he bottles up that bitterness and resentment. One night, she goes off really crazy and violent on him, screaming and throwing dangerous objects at him, and finally, her rage gets so intense she says she is going to call the police and tell them that he is abusing her. At that point, knowing that he will go to jail for something he did not do, have charges put on his record, likely lose his job once they find out, lose access to his children, and be labeled a "wife beater" by everyone he knows, as soon as she picks up the phone, he snaps, realizing it might just be easier to kill her, dispose of the body, and take his chances to get away with it, solving all of his problems in one swift action because, after all, he might be going to jail anyway on nothing more than the accusation of a liar.

I am in no way justifying that course of action, but I would ask women: In his position, with the law stacked against him, what option does he have to defend himself? Really put yourself in that position and ask yourself: What would you do if a man could have you arrested and defamed without any evidence or due process? For this reason, these types of laws and regulations should NOT exist, and these domestic cases should be left up to family, friends, and neighbors to handle, but if legislators insist that they remain in effect, then we should amend them so that BOTH the man AND the woman are arrested and spend 8-24 hours in jail.

This would make a lot more sense because most instances of domestic violence are committed by both parties at the same time. Therefore, law enforcement would be in the right the majority of the time, and in the instances where only one party was at fault, medical examiners could document that evidence while both parties are in holding, which would make the evidence of abuse more clear to everyone.

However, as of 2024, the bias against men in favor of women on domestic abuse cases is far out of control because most women are not criminally prosecuted for domestic violence as men are, even if they are arrested on clear probable cause and evidence. A United Kingdom study of the U.S. from the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, concerning this female-bias in domestic abuse, found the following:
"Mostly the response of police to intimate partner violence has been based upon the social position that the men have within the society. According to George and Yarwood (2004), police have threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest. George and Yarwood also found that the police ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators. This is due to the disbelief that a woman could have been the perpetrator of this type of crime and the male must be intimidating the woman to the point that the woman is attacking in self-defense."
-Caroletta A. Shuler, "Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States: An Examination of the Review of Literature through the Critical Theoretical Perspective," International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2010, p. 165, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/carolettaijcjs2010vol5iss1.pdf]

The corrupt and communist United Nations is also taking on their presumed responsibility of pushing legislation for what they call "determining the predominant aggressor," which is training for police officers to "analyze" the situation in domestic violence cases. The problem is the list of attributes for "determining the predominant aggressor" is biased against men:
"Police must be able to recognize the tactics of power and control. They must consider such issues as: the severity of injuries inflicted by each party, the difference in size and weight of the parties, the demeanor of the parties, any prior complaints of violence, claims of self-defense and the likelihood of further injury to a party."
-United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, "Determining the predominant aggressor," Jan 7, 2011, retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://endvawnow.org/en/articles/437-determining-the-predominant-aggressor.html]

Let's go over these descriptions one at a time because it is important to understand that this list of circumstances is deceptive. It is very likely this was written by people who do not have any education or experience in self-defense.

the severity of injuries inflicted by each party

If a robber runs into a store with a weapon, but the owner pulls out a shotgun and blasts a tangerine-sized hole in his skull, the severity of the injury does NOT determine the aggressor. Furthermore, if a man is defending himself against a woman, he might take lesser injury because she is weaker than him, but he might inflict a greater injury on her simply to put a stop to her aggression.

the difference in size and weight of the parties

Men are naturally, on average, larger in stature than women, which means this is an automatic bias against men for no other reason than genetics, and that is not a valid excuse for an arrest. Even in instances where a woman is fat, and weighs more than a man, the men are still arrested with prejudice.

the demeanor of the parties

A man could be furious when the police arrive because his wife made a false report, but that is not a just precident to arrest him. A woman could be upset and/or fearful, maybe crying some crocodile tears, but that is also not a just reason to make an arrest on the man; the facts need to be weighed based on evidence, not based on how someone feels in the moment.

any prior complaints of violence

If a woman has made multiple false reports, that would be classified as "prior complaints of violence," not prior EVIDENCE of violence because people commonly complain about things that are not true. So this is clear bias against men because women know that, in most cases, men do not report women because it is seen as emasculating to call the police on his wife or girlfriend.

claims of self-defense

This is the same as the prior complaints argument because anytime the evidence is not in favor of the woman's actions, she will lie and claim "self-defense" so as not to be held accountable for what she has done. Men are less often believed when claiming self-defense simply for the aforemented bias reasons, specifically that they are larger "in size and weight."

the likelihood of further injury to a party

Without gathering proper evidence, it is often rather difficult to tell if there would be further injury because that goes into the realm of thought crimes. Although there are instances where the evidence shows danger, domestic cases are difficult to ascertain without an investigation, and thus, these matters are best left to family, friends, neighbors, churches, and charities to give help to those who are actually victimized.

The 1994 U.S. "Violence Against Women Act" gave women low-income housing assistance, protection, and free legal aid with pro-bono lawyers who will oversee their cases, while men are expected to pay for their lawy fees on their own or go to court without legal representation. This gives women huge advantage and incentive (i.e. government subsidization) to make false charges against men and lie about what happened in order to get special benefits that most men do not have and cannot afford.

Although the following author does not target males or females, this is primarily a problem for men, in which women abuse the system. Robert Kerns of Garrett College points out that there is a serious problem in the U.S. court system with bias against parents falsely accused of abusing their children:
"A false accusation of child abuse is one of the gravest offenses one can allege against a parent. In our society there is a bright line standard that if a child is abused, the law steps in to shield the child from the attacker, but what happens when our legal system is manipulated so as to trick a court into protecting a child from an innocent parent? The welfare of a child cannot be recognized when he or she is fractioned from a qualified parent because an opposing parent cried wolf and knowingly made false accusations against the other of abuse to gain custody of the child, and the shadow of the allegation of one of the most heinous crimes known to man hovers over the wrongly accused parent for the rest of his or her life. This Article presents the problems associated with the use of false claims of abuse to sway determinations of child custody in a societal climate where the occurrence of such an ill act may become more prevalent. It then examines the state of the laws aimed at preventing this malfeasance and proposes elements that a law should have in order to better deter and redress the making of false accusations of abuse in child custody battles."
-Robert Kerns, "Crying Wolf: The Use of False Accusations of Abuse to Influence Child Custodianship and a Proposal to Protect the Innocent," Jan 14, 2016, South Texas Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2015, retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2715774]

As we covered in chapter three, divorce attorneys in child custody cases instruct women to bring up charges of abuse, both against her and the children, whether they are true or not, and that will typically get her automatic custody of the children without evidence having to be presented in a criminal trial. For those of you who may not believe that lawyers instruct women to game the system and set men up without proper evidence, the following quote is from Leslie Levy, Assistant County Attorney in Austin, Texas, during a seminar in which she instructed other attorneys on how to use Protection From Abuse (PFA) claims, to have children automatically taken away from men, to offset caseload and paperwork for her office:
"AUDIENCE ATTORNEY: So I've had one that was an EPO [Emergency Protective Order]... it was his house, but it was a marital residence, even though [the] guy owned it, he was arrested that night, 30-day EPO, and he did get an extension on the kick-out, even though it was his house, it was a marital residence, and there were kids in it.
LEVY: So I don't do as many EPOs because I don't do a lot of criminal law, but I would believe that that would work. I have also seen people kicked out of their house by an EPO. I don't even file for them since I only do civil, but I have seen people kicked out on behalf of an EPO, so... my guess would be that if you're the divorce attorney, you're not the one asking for the EPO, but if it happens on its own, then absolutely, and like I said, when we got one, we didn't file for a kick-out when we got this guy kicked out of his house because it was too close to her house."
-Leslie Levy, "Williamson County DA Assistant Leslie Levy Teaching Attorneys How To Do Restraining Orders," Surviving a Divorce for Men, Apr 15, 2020, retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://youtu.be/CfhLadxLHis?si=BXxqub5XLD2BkJKm&t=867]

Let's break this down: An Emergency Protective Order (EPO) bypasses the normal procedure for getting a restraining order, allowing restraints to be put in place much faster than normal, and because of that, it should have strigient guidelines and evidenciary requirements before being issued. However, these types of EPOs have sometimes been issued by rubber-stamping judges, who just pump them out because they see the word 'abuse', and Levy ENCOURAGES attorneys to use this abuse of the law to oppress men and win their cases.

Thus, depending on the judge, and depending on the state, a woman can simply drop the word 'abuse', and get an EPO, and her attorney will encourage her to do this. This allows a woman to kick her husband/boyfriend out of his house, and as Levy just told us, he can be kicked out of his own home even if she does not live with him, which is a massive violation of the Fourth (seizure of property) and Fourteenth (due process) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

If you think that I have jumped to conclusions about Levy's instruction for attorneys to push for unlawful PFAs and EPOs, then listen to the 38 minutes of the video yourself by checking out the link in the reference. Read carefully what Levy says next about the man getting kicked out of his own home (which the woman did not reside in):
"The constable called us [about the EPO] and said, 'You realize the result of this is he has to leave his house', and we said 'Yes, we do.' It's up to him if he wants to violate that protective order or not."
-Leslie Levy, "Williamson County DA Assistant Leslie Levy Teaching Attorneys How To Do Restraining Orders," Surviving a Divorce for Men, Apr 15, 2020, retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://youtu.be/CfhLadxLHis?si=IaZOF3gON53XygT7&t=918]

The reason our system is broken is because, at the moment, there does not need to be evidence to issue judicial punishment. The woman just needs to CLAIM there was abuse, and because of FEMALE privilege, she is automatically believed, and there are currently no safe guards against vindictive women that use tax-funded resoures out of spite and revenge.

As much as it is disgusting that attorneys encourage these unlawful strategies against men, it should be noted that if they do not inform women of these options, they could be sued for malpractice. The society we live in is insane, but when a woman wants to take everything from her husband, lawyers get paid to help her take everything from her husband, and if they do not help her to the fullest extent by explaining to her all her options, she can sue the law office for fraud, which is even more FEMALE privilege.

The following is from a male victim of female abuse that was published in a National Institutes of Health study:
"I have never hit my wife, but today I came close to doing this. It should be noted she has hit me more times than I can remember and kicked me. I grabbed her arms in self defense and held her to the floor. I am a very big and strong man, my wife is tall but thin, not strong at all. I know I will be the one who goes to jail even though she is the one hitting and kicking. I asked her why she hit me, and she said, 'because you're bigger than me.' I just felt vengeful for a second and slapped her back. It was the only time I hit her, ever. I cried because I was raised not to hit women, and I felt disappointed in myself that I had crossed that line."
-Denise A. Hines & Emily M. Douglas, "A Closer Look at Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism by Women," U.S. National Library of Medicine, Jan 1, 2010, DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.286, PMCID: PMC2913504, retrieved Apr 19, 2024, [https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504/]

If a tall man was walking down the street and a shorter man ran up to him and punched him in the face, is that a justified attack because the attacker is smaller than the victim? If a short woman runs up to a tall woman and kicks her in the shin, is it a justified attack because the victim was bigger than her? We would never suffer that excuse from men or women on the street, but for some reason, when a woman does it in her house, why is she suddenly justified?

The man in this instance did not want to hit her, even though she had attacked him countless times. All she has to do is report him for slapping her one time, and his life is over because there is no such thing as "male privilege."

The same study asked male victims of female abuse what happened during their last argument in which she attacked him physically, and here were some of the answers:

Tried to talk to her about it calmly, saying 'now, if I did that to you, you'd call it abuse.' She answered that she was defending her honor. I tell her that it is not acceptable for her to hit me, or yell at me, especially in front of the children. I also ask her to apologize. She refused to give me my cell phone and car keys and wouldn't let me leave the house. When I took the car keys from her she called the cops and I was arrested and convicted. I tried to leave and she hit me in the head with a flower pot, then took the phone from me to prevent me from calling anyone. Tried to leave but was prevented. I had been injured earlier that day and was not able to physically defend myself. She seemed to be panicking so I wrapped my arms around her... and tried to hold her still until she calmed down—she later said that my holding her that way was physically abusive. Put my hands up to stop her hands from hitting my body and backed away. Mostly I just sat there and took it and tried to act like I was above it.

If a man said that he hit a woman because he was defending his honor, would we accept that as a justified assault? If a man took a woman's phone and car keys, and would not let her leave the house, he would be arrested for kidnapping, but when a woman does it, it is suddenly not illegal.

Again, I ask women: What should he do? If a man was punching and kicking you around the house, and you knew that if you reported him, you would be arrested, charged with abuse, and lose your home and children, what would you do?

Most of you women have no clue what you would do or who you could turn to. Welcome to world of men.

The study continued to log other male victim reactions, including praying, or writing in a journal in response to her aggression, because men do not have hardly any other option. Other men said they would attend to the children (i.e. calm them or protect them), try to get someone else to call the police, hitting a wall or object to work out their own aggression, or simply cleaning and bandaging their own wounds.

Most men and women would tell the man to leave her, and I believe most Christians would say the same thing. However, the same study asked these men what prevented them from leaving her, and again, these are direct quotations from the male victims:

She spends every penny that comes in and has racked up thousands in debt. I would lose everything I've tried to save. Or at least half including half my retirement. She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we work together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them (domestic situations being as difficult to ascertain as they are, men are guilty until proven innocent). I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children in the long run. 'For better or for worse,' and, well, this was worse. I didn't care that she was too psychologically disturbed to love me back, I didn't care. I loved her. And I hoped I could get help for her condition before it was too late. I stay around to protect the children! She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody. She's mentally ill. I know she's not doing this on purpose. I know she loves me. Concern for her well-being, [she can't] financially take care of herself.

These testimonies should not overshadow the genuine domestic abuse cases in which the woman is the sole victim, because they need help in many cases. However, those cases are almost all we hear about, and furthermore, the mainstream fake news media is highlighting illegitmate cases in which women lie about men, while men who are abused by women, as seen in the above examples, get no attention and no help.

The reasons that women give for why they stay with an abusive man are similar to the reasons men give for why they stay with an abusive woman. However, the difference is that women are praised and glorified for their bravery in coming forward, while men are more often mocked and prosecuted by the full extent of the law for simply keeping his word to her in marriage, loving his children, and trying to be a good husband and father.

The following study did qualitative research, or in other words, they focused less on statistics and more on gaining understanding of each individual case; the motivation, beliefs, and attitudes of the victims:
"In 2001, as a follow-up to the Dispatches survey, Dewar Research, a private research initiative, in collaboration with Dr Malcolm George of London University, decided to carry out a further qualitative study of the domestic abuse of men in England and Wales, and Ireland, by female partners. The results... are based on the responses of 100 male victims, 49 from England and Wales and 51 from Ireland... Male victims face particular difficulties, with almost no publicly funded support services specifically for them, and little public or official sympathy. Indeed, they often face antagonism by the police and social agencies, as evidenced by the significant proportions of male victims who are themselves arrested after seeking help. A large proportion of father victims are forced to leave the family home, whilst their children remain with the violent mother, and subsequently face considerable difficulties in maintaining meaningful or any contact with the children. The cumulative effect of highlighting the plight only of women victims of domestic violence in public and official policies over the last three decades, whilst no doubt helping many genuine female victims, has also clearly served to ignore or marginalise the plight of genuine male victims and their children."
-M.J. George & D.J. Yarwood, "Male Domestic Violence Victims Survey 2001," Dewar Research, October, 2004, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160418030005/dewar4research.org/DOCS/mdv.pdf]

If we witnessed women being antagonized by police and/or arrested for reporting being attacked by an abusive man, there would be outrage from every corner of society. How would we react if a woman was separated from her children for reporting her spouse's violence? However, this happens frequently to men, and many people do not seem to care.

The reason men need help in these situations is because men have had all power stripped from them by other men, or in other words, the government (whose enforcement power is primarily made up of men) oppresses men. Women will never rally together organizations to help men because women expect help FROM men, not the other way around, and therefore, in order to stop female abuse, men need to rally together and take back their power, which we men can collectively do anytime we decide we have had enough.

But the obstacle that prevents the discipline of women is not so much women as it is simps, who women manipulate to be an enforcement arm for their cause. Feminists have successfully rallied together their simp army under the battlecry of "emotional abuse."



 

Feminists claim that women suffer "emotional abuse" that men do not suffer because men are not as "emotionally intelligent" as women are, but the problem with this argument is that "emotional abuse" does not exist. Feminist Simone Marie wrote an article for Healthline called "Emotionally Abusive Relationships Can Be Hard to Recognize," and the reason it is hard to recognize is because it does not exist in reality.
(See Simone Marie, "Emotionally Abusive Relationships Can Be Hard to Recognize. Here's Why," June 30, 2020, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/recognize-emotionally-abusive-relationships])

emotion (n): an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness; any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc
(See 'emotion', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Emotions (e.g. hate, sadness, joy, etc) are abstract concepts, which cannot be tested by any scientific method. Any feelings one might have are subjective, meaning those feelings are taking place inside oneself, which cannot be verified by any outside source, and therefore, (absent physical abuse, which is provable criminal activity) every person is solely responsible for how they feel at any given moment.

Therefore, it logically follows that no one can hold another person responsible for "emotional abuse" because everyone is individually responsible for their own choices. However, feminists (and I would argue, women in general) abhor the idea of being personally responsible for their decisions, so the purpose for claiming "emotional abuse" is so a woman who is not being abused can say she was "abused," blame her poor choices on someone else, and get legal recourse in a way that does not have to be proven in a court of law.

Because emotional abuse is non-existent, it becomes rather difficult for feminists to provide a solid definition. In Marie's article, she quotes from feminist psychologist Louis Laves-Webb, and he said:
"An emotionally abusive relationship is one where there exists a misuse and abuse of power aimed at isolating, manipulating, and controlling the victim for the primary purpose of meeting the vacuous and stilted emotional needs of the abuser."
-Louis Laves-Webb, quoted by Simone Marie, "Emotionally Abusive Relationships Can Be Hard to Recognize. Here's Why," June 30, 2020, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/recognize-emotionally-abusive-relationships]

This is a redundant definition because it says that "emotional abuse" is "misuse and abuse of power," but as we learned in chapter three, the definition of 'abuse' is "improper use." That just so happens to be the exact definition of the word 'misuse'.

misuse (n): wrong or improper use
(See 'misuse', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The word 'misuse' is another word for 'abuse' because they mean the same thing; both words contain the word 'use', just with two prefixes that have similar meaning. (i.e. The prefix 'mis' means "wrong" and the prefix 'ab' means "away," or "away from [proper] use.") Louis said that "emotional abuse" is "abuse of power", but again, that is redundant because abuse can only be done by those in power over others, which means that, a professional psychotherapist (who charges $100-$175/hr, according to his website in 2024) defined "emotional abuse" as "abuse and abuse," which is more than deserving of a hardy forehead slap.
(See Louis Laves-Webb LCSW, LPC-S & Associates, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.louislaves-webb.com/]; Read Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil to learn more about the scam, pseudo-science called "psychology.")

Of course, one might argue the difference is the intent of the abuse, which is what Louis did, specifically pointing out that the "abuse" was aimed at "isolating, manipulating, and controlling the victim," but I would ask how that makes "emotional abuse" different from physical abuse? Is not domestic violence intended to isolate, manipulate, and control the victim? Thus, we are back to square one, meaning that we still do not know what "emotional abuse" is supposed to mean.

I decided to keep digging to see if I could find another feminist who could pin down a solid definition. Feminist Sherri Gordon on VeryWellMind's website made an attempt:
"In general, a relationship is emotionally abusive when there is a consistent pattern of abusive words and bullying behaviors that wear down a person's self-esteem and undermine their mental health."
-Sherri Gordon, "What Is Emotional Abuse?" VeryWellMind, Nov 7, 2022, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.verywellmind.com/identify-and-cope-with-emotional-abuse-4156673]

So when trying to tell us what "emotional abuse" is, the author says it is "abusive words," which begs the question because you cannot use a word to define itself, and that was the same error made by Marie and Louis when they defined "emotional abuse" as "abuse and abuse." For example, if I told you that I owned a figarzimech, you asked me what a figarzimech is, and I told you it was simply a figarzimech-like device, then you would still be left wondering what a figarzimech is supposed to be, which is exactly where we stand with the nebulus term "emotional abuse."

Gordon also said it was "bullying behaviors," and so I had to go look up the definition of 'bully':

bully (n): a blustering, mean, or predatory person who, from a perceived position of relative power, intimidates, abuses, harasses, or coerces people, especially those considered unlikely to defend themselves
(See 'bully', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The definition of 'bully' is a person who abuses others whom the bully would have power over, which, once again, begs the question because it simply shifts the phrase "emotional abuse" to "emotional bully," which mean the same thing. The reason we see this pattern of redundancy is because the phrase "emotional abuse" is based on a fallacy known as "appeal to emotion," which makes it impossible to provide a logically consistent definition.

The following is a summary of the appeal to emotion fallacy:
"The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which occurs when an argument is made that is based primarily on emotion or feelings, rather than facts and logic. This fallacy is often used in an attempt to manipulate the audience into accepting a particular argument or position, regardless of its validity or truthfulness. This type of fallacy is also known as an 'emotional appeal' or 'argumentum ad passiones.' An Appeal to Emotion fallacy is often used to make a particular argument seem more compelling and persuasive, even if the argument itself has no logical merit."
-Appeal to Emotion, Logical Fallacies, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-emotion.html]

My argument is that when a woman claims a man is "emotionally abusive," it is "an attempt to maipulate [someone] into accepting a particular argument... regardless of its validity or truthfulness," which makes "emotional abuse" a catch-22. (i.e. A problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the definition.) So-called "emotional abuse" does not exist until a woman claims that she is being "emotionally abused" because, at that point, she is emotionally abusing others, using the appeal to emotion fallacy as a manipulation tool to gather sympathizers to her cause.

To put it another way, if real abuse is taking place, you can simply provide the physical evidence of it, which ought to be the standard in any domestic abuse case. For example, if a woman was under huge amounts of stress from the constant berating of her husband to the point that her hair was falling out, that could be considered abusive (under the assumption that one could prove that the man's words were the cause of her hair falling out), but that would be PHYSICAL abuse because there was a physical effect. However, there are many women who want to claim "abuse" without having to provide concrete evidence of it (because she has none), and so they appeal to their abstract emotions and expect everyone to validate them with restitution. (i.e. She wants special unearned privileges and free stuff.)

Whenever you read an article or listen to an interview in which a feminist tells you the signs of "emotional abuse," read/listen carefully because these feminists are actually making a confession. Unbeknownst to them, they are telling on themselves, namely, they are explaining what they are doing to you in that moment.

The commonly used word for this today is 'projection':

projection (n): the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself
(See 'projection', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

To put it another way, it is when a woman accuses man of doing that which she is guilty of doing. The guilty woman will falsely accuse the innocent man, attributing what she did onto him, in an attempt to draw attention away from her guilty deeds.

For example, the Canadian Women's Foundation provides a list of what they consider to be qualifiers for "emotional abuse:"
"-Defining and trying to exert how they think you should feel
-Dismissal of your feelings as 'crazy,' 'dramatic,' 'overreacting,' or 'emotional' (sometimes, abusers will use others to validate their point of view and invalidate your belief in yourself: such as, 'everyone thinks you're crazy')
-Refusing to take responsibility for their actions or how they made you feel (they may try to frame everything, including your pain, as 'your fault')"
-Canadian Women's Foundation, "Signs of Emotional Abuse," retrieved Apr 26, 2024, [https://canadianwomen.org/blog/signs-of-emotional-abuse/]

Those who accuse others of "emotional abuse" are "trying to exert how they think you should feel" about how they feel about something. If you tell them they are being "crazy, dramatic, overreacting, or emotional" for accusing you of "emotional abuse," they will dismiss you, "use others to validate their point of view and invalidate your belief in yourself." Furthermore, if you point out the fallacy of their appeal to emotion, they will refuse "to take responsibility for their actions," and "try to frame everything, including your pain, as 'your fault'."

This may be eye-opening to some men who have been accused of being "emotionally abusive," and that is because women are masters of manipulation. When a woman is a young girl, she quickly learns that she must utilize manipulative tactics to get men to put her will above his own. These tactics are often very subtle, and men need to understand them, otherwise, they will fall victim to them.

For example, aforementioned feminist Sherri Gordon unknowingly describes exactly what she is doing in her article on "emotional abuse," manipulating her audience into believing her position:
"When considering your relationship, also remember that emotional abuse is often subtle. As a result, it can be extremely hard to detect the signs. If you are having trouble discerning whether your relationship is abusive, think about how your interactions make you feel. Also, don't fall into the trap of telling yourself that 'it's not that bad' and minimize the other person's behavior."
-Sherri Gordon, "What Is Emotional Abuse?" VeryWellMind, Nov 7, 2022, retrieved Apr 23, 2024, [https://www.verywellmind.com/identify-and-cope-with-emotional-abuse-4156673]

How does going to the dentist make you feel? Does it feel good or bad? Is there a feeling of dread within you while sitting in the waiting room at the dentist's office? According to feminists, you may be the victim of "dental abuse" because we have to "remember that emotional abuse is often subtle," and if we do not remember that, then we risk "fall[ing] into the trap of telling yourself that 'it's not that bad'."

As a student, how does doing your homework make you feel? Does it feel good or bad? Is there a feeling of dread within you knowing that you will have to read a complicated book and perhaps spend hours writing out thoughts and analysis? According to feminits, you may be the victim of "educational abuse" because we have to "remember that emotional abuse is often subtle," and if we do not remember that, then we risk "fall[ing] into the trap of telling yourself that 'it's not that bad'."

How does going to work at your job make you feel? Does it feel good or bad? Is there a feeling of dread within you while dragging yourself out of bed and driving to your job, knowing that you will spend the next few hours doing something you hate? According to feminists, you may be the victim of "occupational abuse" because we have to "remember that emotional abuse is often subtle," and if we do not remember that, then we risk "fall[ing] into the trap of telling yourself that 'it's not that bad'."

Let's do one more: How does it feel when a woman accuses you of emotional abuse? Does it feel good or bad? Is there a feeling of dread within you knowing that she will have law enforcement, the courts, the media, and the majority of the willingly ignorant public behind her word alone, without any evidence to prove her feigned case against you? According to feminists, you may be the victim of "emotional abuse" because we have to "remember that emotional abuse is often subtle," used by women who attempt "isolating, manipulating, and controlling their victim," and if we do not remember that, then we risk "fall[ing] into the trap of telling yourself that 'it's not that bad'."

I hope readers are understanding my point that "emotional abuse" is completely subjective, or in other words, anything that is perceived to make a woman "feel negative feelings" could be considered "abuse" according to feminists. A woman could feel good one day, but the next day she could start her period, and then suddenly, her emotions shift to the negative side, where nothing a man says or does makes her feel better, and so everything he says and does magically morphs into "emotional abuse" because she feels that way.

This is one of many reasons why God did not put women in authority over men in the family.

Where I live, we have some property that is not worth very much because it is next to a river that floods every year, which makes it impossible to have a solid foundation on which to build a house, so we avoid building in that area, and only build on areas that have a solid, consistent foundation. Doing otherwise would be insanity because everything we built would only be torn down during the next flood season. If it is one thing that women are NOT know for, it is emotional stability, and therefore, like building on ground that is inconsistent (Mat 7:26-27), it is insanity to create standards of analysis, rules, and regulations on something that has no solid, consistent foundation.

Thus, we should heed Gordon's warning about herself. We should remember that feminists are deceptively subtle in many cases, and we should not fall into the trap of telling ourselves that it is not that bad.

As I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there is a modern feminist trope that women have more "emotional intelligence" than men, which is nonsense for many reasons. The following feminist author at Psychology Today said:
"Emotional intelligence has four parts: self-awareness, managing our emotions, empathy, and social skill. There are many tests of emotional intelligence, and most seem to show that women tend to have an edge over men when it comes to these basic skills for a happy and successful life."
-Dan Goleman, "Are Women More Emotionally Intelligent Than Men?" Psychology Today, Apr 29, 2011, retrieved Apr 24, 2024, [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-brain-and-emotional-intelligence/201104/are-women-more-emotionally-intelligent-men]

I offer the same argument for "emotional abuse" concerning "emotional intelligece," namely, that "emotional intelligence" does not exist because if there is any education and understanding to be acheived in dealing with emotions, that is simply wisdom and intelligence. Putting an adjective modifier in front of those words (e.g. "emotional wisdom" or "emotional intelligence") is just a scam designed to make women (and the men who simp for them) feel like they have more relevant impact in society than they do pragmatically.

Feminist Renelle Darr states the gynocentric view more clearly:
"When we develop our emotional intelligence to a high level, we are more aware, more authentic and more connective toward others."
-Renelle Darr, "How Emotional Intelligence Offers A Path To Gender Equity," Forbes, May 14, 2019, retrieved Apr 24, 2024, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/05/14/how-emotional-intelligence-offers-a-path-to-gender-equity/]

In simple terms, intelligence has to do with problem solving, which is applicable to any subject matter. Whether constructing a rocket or running a business or mending broken relationships, intelligence is important because we will always run into problems that must be solved, but claiming there is a special sub-category of intelligence called "emotional intelligence" carries the same problem as claiming "emotional abuse," meaning that the term "emotional intelligence" is a way for women to claim they are intelligent without having to show any proof of real intelligence.

The reason men are more commonly understood to be problem-solvers is because, on average, men are more intelligent than women. In fact, the existence of feminism provides strong evidence that men are more intelligent than women because while men are busy solving problems (i.e. inventing, exploring, repairing, and maintaining the complex systems that keep the world functioning), women do not solve problems near as much as they whine to create problems, complaining that men should give them more free stuff and privileges beyond what they have earned or deserve. (We will cover more on that in chapter seven.)

Because the reason for a person's feelings in many situations (especially in women) is often vague and elusive, it makes it impossible to tell if one could have such a thing as "emotional intelligence" because a woman could simply say that her feelings were caused by anything, and she would be "right" by default because we have no objective logical or scientific standard to prove her wrong, and therefore, no one can reasonably argue against her because there is no path of reasoning upon which we can conclude an argument. Thus, instead of doing the intensive study, difficult labor, and experiencing hardships required to develop a strong intellect, most women find it more convenient to make up irrational and manipulative terms like "emotional intelligence" to convince others they have valid traits that can compete with men, and persuade foolish simps to pay women to run HR (Human Resources) departments to legally threaten men into kneeling at the feet of a woman's feelings.

Ergo, if a man does not validate a woman's feelings, or make her feel like she is justified by how she feels, he is "emotionally abusive" according to feminists because she allegedly has the "emotional intelligence" to see through his so-called "emotional abuse." Please keep this in mind as we explore "Signs of an Emotionally Abusive Relationship" by David Hawkins, who offered examples in the form of a first-person point of view:
"I do not feel safe bringing a concern to him or her. When I do, I'm met with aggression, retribution, or stonewalling. I don't feel safe in bringing a concern to this person, whether they're a woman, or a man, or a boss, or a parent, or whoever; I don't feel safe."
-David Hawkins, "10 Signs of an Emotionally Abusive Relationship," Aug 27, 2023, retrieved Aug 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/xcjQ3675qTI?si=W0hwkhYyopqOS3iG&t=65]

As I said before, "emotional abuse" does not exist until a woman claims she is being "emotionally abused," and therefore, what she is really telling you in this statement is that she is not a safe person to be around. By her saying that she does not "feel safe," she is saying that her feelings are MORE important than the subject matter of the conversation.

Is aggression abuse? It depends, but Hawkins did not define it.

So let's go back to VeryWellMind and read what feminist Kendra Cherry says about aggression:
"In psychology, aggression refers to a range of behaviors that can result in both physical and psychological harm to yourself, others, or objects in the environment. Aggression centers on hurting another person either physically or mentally."
-Kendra Cherry, "What Is Aggression?" VeryWellMind, Nov 14, 2022, retrieved Apr 24, 2024, [https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-aggression-2794818]

So aggression can be physical harm, and if that is the case, then it is domestic violence, which is physical abuse, and that is both immoral (i.e. against the commandments of Scripture, Eph 5:28) and criminal (i.e. against state law). However, Hawkins was talking about aggression concerning "emotional abuse," which means he cannot be referring to physical violence, otherwise, we would just call it physical violence.

So how does aggression hurt a person mentally? Again, these are unclear definitions, so let's look at some of the signs of "emotional aggression" listed out by Cherry:
"-Verbal, which may include mocking, name-calling, and yelling.
-Relational, which is intended to harm another person's relationships. This can include spreading rumors and telling lies about someone else.
-Passive-aggressive, like ignoring someone during a social event or offering back-handed compliments. Passive-aggressive behavior is usually intended to allow harm to come to someone, rather than causing harm directly."
-Kendra Cherry, "What Is Aggression?" VeryWellMind, Nov 14, 2022, retrieved Apr 24, 2024, [https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-aggression-2794818]

Let's suppose a woman wrecks the family car into a telephone pole because she was texting while driving, the man spends his time and money to fix the car, and tells her never to text while driving again. The following month, the woman wrecks the repaired car into a telephone pole again because she was texting while driving, and he calls her an idiot; is that emotional abuse, or is it just a fact?

If the woman thinks the man is an "emotional abuser," is that not name-calling? Does that make her "emotionally abusive" because she called him an "emotional abuser?"

Does raising your voice count as "emotional abuse?" Because if it does, then women are much more "emotionally abusive" than men, and this also applies to "spreading rumors and telling lies" because that is primarily a female tactic, as we learned about in chapter three.

Is retribution (i.e. punishment) abuse? That depends on the circumstance because punishments can be justified, and so if a man issues a punishment to his wife that is befitting of her bad behavior, but it makes her feel bad and she does not like it, she can call it "emotional abuse."

Is stonewalling (i.e. refusal to communicate) abuse? That depends on the circumstance because there are times when a brawling woman cannot be pacified, and a man knows it is best to say nothing and not communicate with her until she calms down, but if she does not like the fact that he will not speak with her during her tantrum, she can call it "emotional abuse."

The Bible says it is better not to communicate with a brawling woman. It is better to get away from her than to dwell with her:

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,
than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
-Proverbs 21:9

In fact, God thought it so important to understand, He had Solomon write it down twice:

It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop,
than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.
-Proverbs 25:24

If a man is not speaking to a woman, he is not giving her the attention she wants, and so she may physically attack him in retaliation, and that is not hypothetical, as we learned in the last chapter, because the Psychological Reports study by Fiebert & Gonzalez showed that female abusers, "assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally." If the police are called, she will claim it was "self-defense" from his "emotional abuse," he is promptly arrested, and his reputation is ruined.
(See M.S. Fiebert & D.M. Gonzalez, "College Women Who Initiate Assaults on Their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior," Psychological Reports, 1997, DOI:10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.583, retrieved Apr 25, 2024, [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/College-Women-Who-Initiate-Assaults-on-Their-Male-Fiebert-Gonzalez/a82a430ababfc937132fd239fbfdb4f6d832ad5d])

Remember the definition of feminism I provided at the beginning, which is "the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices." So a woman makes a stupid decision, a man points out her stupid decision, she gets upset that he identified what she did because she does not like to take responsibility for her choices, she then says she does not feel "safe" because he knows about and reveals her stupid choices, and overpaid psychologists will gladly give her validation in exchange for (likely his) money by telling her that his words are a form of "emotional abuse," which vindicates her of any wrongdoing.

While I was working on this book, I was listening to a podcast debate in which a feminist claimed that a woman was "emotionally abused" because her husband cut off her funds so she could not freely spend money. Considering most lavish and thoughtless spending on credit cards comes from women, it makes sense that the primary breadwinner (i.e. the man in most cases) will discipline the woman because of her irresponsible spending habits.
(See Gary R. Mottola, "In Our Best Interest: Women, Financial Literacy, and Credit Card Behavior," University of South Florida, July 1, 2013, retrieved Apr 30, 2024, [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=4fc769faf082e339c7e441eea17a94d7bec387bb])

The feminist in the podcast debate then changed the story to say that the woman could not buy food to feed their child, and that this was "emotional abuse," but this is likely not true, meaning that, in most cases, you will find that women lie about these things for personal gain. However, if we assume that it was true, deprevation of food is called "child abuse," and that is PHYSICAL abuse, not "emotional," which is one of the reasons I suspect the feminist (or the woman in the story) was lying, namely, because forced starvation is just abuse, which does not need an "emotional" modifier added to it.

Hawkins continues to describe signs of so-called "emotional abuse:"
"I can never talk about issues without him or her becoming extremely defensive and angry and shutting down. They're going to flip it back on me, there's going to be blame-shifting, stonewalling, there's going to be denial, there's going to be minimization, rationalization, justification, excuse-making, playing the victim."
-David Hawkins, "10 Signs of an Emotionally Abusive Relationship," Aug 27, 2023, retrieved Aug 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/xcjQ3675qTI?si=idY0EEt0QHvvFEfq&t=94]

What I found fascinating is that Hawkins described women almost flawlessly because responsibility and accountablility are like the plague to women, and so they get extremely defensive, angry, shift the blame, make excuses, and play the victim. I have watched many videos of men and women on the street being asked tough philosophical questions, and although both men and women act like this at times, depending on the circumstances and subject matter, (on average) FAR more interviewed women do this than interviewed men.

The reason I say that Hawkins ALMOST flawlessly described women is because he included "rationalization," which can be good or bad depending on how it is defined. Although it is common for women to "rationalize" their position in the sense that they are covering their dark and secret causes for their bad behavior, rationalization can also be used in the sense to demonstrate proper reason, logic, and morals for a position, which women do less commonly than men.

Again, this all depends on the circumstances because if a woman is nagging and brawling, and does not first judge her own words and actions before complaining about a man, he may be defensive and angry as a result because she is acting hypocritically. If the man reacts by getting angry, defending himself, or rationally showing her how she is blowing things out of proportion, she will accuse him of "emotional abuse" to bypass having to provide evidence of abuse to friends and family, to law enforcement, or to a judge in family court.

As I was writing this chapter, I decided to go to Google and type in "emotional abuse doesn't exist" to see what I could find, and their newly created AI overview responded by saying: "Emotional abuse is real and just as serious as physical abuse. It's any behavior that intentionally humiliates or degrades someone, and can be direct or indirect, overt or covert."

So according to Google's AI, a man calling a woman a name is "just as serious" as a woman hitting a man over the head with a frying pan. When I was growing up, children used to hear and use the phrase, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," which I always thought was kind of cringe when I was young, but now I really wish we could return to those days because throwing objects at someone's face or punching someone is FAR BEYOND more serious than words because you could maim or kill someone by doing those things.

Ryan Duncan, of the so-called "Christian" website Crosswalk, attempts to defend the idea of "emotional abuse" by using the Bible:
"'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' How many of us grew up listening to this nursery rhyme? It's a lovely concept, believing words can't hurt people, but we all know it isn't true. The things we say can cut deeper than any scalpel, and the Bible has warned Christians more than once about the damage our words can inflict,"
-Ryan Duncan, "Do Christians Understand the Danger of Emotional Abuse?" Crosswalk, Jan 26, 2016, retrieved May 3, 2024, [https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/christian-trends/do-christians-understand-the-danger-of-emotional-abuse.html]

Duncan goes on to simp for women, quoting a female author who gave her opinion about how women are emotionally abused. He referred to the following verses to justify his position:

Death and life are in the power of the tongue:
and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
-Proverbs 18:21

There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword:
but the tongue of the wise is health.
-Proverbs 12:18

It is amazing how little these so-called "Christian" authors understand about the Scripture they are referencing, and the average reader does not look up these Scriptures to study and understand them. When the Bible says that "death and life are in the power of the tongue," it means in the sense of witnesses, that judges and juries can condemn or justify, or in the sense of teachers, that they can bring ruin or prosperity to students.

Some people talk a lot while other people talk little, and for those who talk a lot, there are some who are rash with their mouths (Ecc 5:2), not taking the time to consider the ramifications of what they say before they say it. On the other hand, there are those who talk a lot, but have wisdom in their speech, which can benefit both the speaker and the hearer, and so those that love to use their tongue will reap the advantages or disadvantages that are sown from it.

To clarify, that has nothing to do with "emotional abuse" because it does not exist. The verse is more a warning for those who like to talk a lot, and will get themselves in trouble for using their tongue in the wrong way.

The second verse has more contextual meaning to this subject matter, but it is NOT in the way Duncan used it because it actually refers more to what women typically do, namely, by giving false witness to destroy a man's reputation. Of course, both men and women do this evil, but because men more often do business to earn a living, their reputation is important to maintain security in those business relationships, which means that women who recognize this will use that weakness against them, knowing that the more indirect, feminine tactic of lying (in combination with the false narrative of "#BelieveAllWomen") can destroy him.

This is not meant in the sense of small offenses like name-calling because, for example, I am called names all the time in my work of teaching in ministry. That does not hurt me, but what can hurt me is when people falsely accuse me publicly, which would lead the public at large to bring false charges against me, and that has happened to many Christians throughout the past 2,000 years, starting with Christ, who was falsely accused of being an agent of Satan (as I have also been accused many times).

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow [Jesus] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
-Matthew 12:24

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
-Luke 6:22-23

Those who give honest testimony, to clear up the false allegations and defend the character of honest people, bring healing, comfort, and joy to those who have been oppressed by the lying tongues of others. (i.e. "the tongue of the wise is health") However, it is quite often wicked women who speak with their tongue like the stabbing of a sword, to wound the good name of a man, and destroy his credibility, because she is a dangerous creature, a viper that pierces with venom, and most of the time (as of 2024, in our corrupt and broken American "justice" system), men do not have much legal recourse to get restitution.

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. [pause and consider] Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
-Psalm 82:2-4

It should be noted that destroying a man's reputation to cause him loss of employment and estrangement from his family and friends is PHYSICAL abuse, not "emotional abuse." There is tangible evidence of damages done by the woman in that situation, and in a system of true justice, she should be made to pay those damages to the man she abused, as well as make public statements to confess her lies.

But Google's feminist-controlled AI and fake "Christian" websites argue that I am completely wrong in my assessment of "emotional abuse," because the average person now believes that there is no reason to overtly and intentionally humiliate or degrade someone. I am in firm disagreement with them, and I believe a good example of proper humiliation was demonstrated by Montrail White, a father who has been defamed in the media, who used a brilliant strategy to teach his then eight-year-old daughter a valuable lesson.


White's daughter had been caught stealing many times, and typical punishments (such as removal of entertainment) did not solve the problem. He came up with the great idea of bringing his daughter to the entrance of the elementary school she attended early in the morning, before everyone arrived, made her wear a sign (shown in the above image) that said "I like to steal from others and then lie about it!!," and stand on the sidewalk as all the students and faculty came to school so they could see her.

White, in a show of exemplary fatherhood, used overt humiliation and degredation of his daughter to reveal her sin to everyone, which caused her to feel extreme shame, likely being belittled by her classmates for her crimes, and I am certain she would not forget it the next time she thought to steal something. White was quoted offering commendable reasoning for this punishment:
"Is it more embarrassing to her to let a few people see her now, or have her name in the newspaper when she gets older and is caught stealing and sent to jail?"
-Montrail White, quoted by Kim Kovelle, "Dad Punishes, Humiliates Kid By Making Her Wear Sign That Says 'I Like to Steal'," MetroParent, Apr 23, 2012, retrieved Apr 25, 2024, [https://www.metroparent.com/parenting/oh-mother/dad-punishes-humiliates-kid-by-making-her-wear-sign-that-says-i-like-to-steal/]

This man loves his daughter so much, he is willing to put her through this so that she would gain understanding and become an upstanding citizen that benefits the community. These are valuable lessons that children need to learn, but according to feminists, this is "emotional abuse," and feminist hacks, like those on the pseudo-science website Psychology Today, claim that a parent is "guilty" of emotional trama, simply because children are made to face the conseqences of their actions.
(See Susan Newman, "Are You Guilty of Humiliation Parenting?" Psychology Today, July 12, 2012, retrieved Apr 25, 2024, [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201207/are-you-guilty-humiliation-parenting])

I kept searching online to try and find anything that would indicate that "emotional abuse" does not exist, and happened upon some Reddit comments from those who firmly believe that "emotional abuse" exists, even when men are the alleged "victims" of it. There was a story about a man dating a woman who told him emotional abuse did not exist, and then when she felt slighted, she would accuse him of abuse on an emotional level, and the comments were... interesting.
(See Grace-Kamikaze, "What do you think if one says that emotional abuse doesn't exist?" retrieved May 3, 2024, [https://www.reddit.com/r/NarcissisticAbuse/comments/19feq1d/what_do_you_think_if_one_says_that_emotional/])

For example, one person commented on this story, stating that if anyone says that emotional abuse does not exist, that is, of itself, emotional abuse, which, according to their argument, would make this book "emotional abuse." It would also indicate that if you even question the existence or validity of the "emotional abuse" accusation, then you are guilty of it, which means that no one is allowed to think objectively about the subject, else they be stigmatized as an "emotional abuser."

When people use false accusations to get away with their misbehavior, and use gaslighting to get away with their lies, we used to just call that person a "deceiver" or a "scammer."

scam (n): a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme
deceive (v): to mislead by a false appearance or statement
(See 'scam' & 'deceive', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

A confidence game is where someone would make you confident in something to make you drop your guard, thereby making you vulnerable. For example, a pool shark might lure a victim into a bet on a billiard game, acting like he has low skill, making the victim confident, giving him a false sense of security in his own abilities, and when the bet increases to a large amount, the pool shark shows his true skills, running the table and taking the money. Thus, a scam artist in a relationship will make her man more confident in her, misleading him with a false appearance, while lowering his confidence in himself, to get him to drop his guard so she can take advantage of him for some sort of personal gain, typically money or attention.

So what is the difference between accusing someone of a "scam" and accusing someone of "emotional abuse?" The answer is: Personal Responsibility.

If a woman accuses a man of "emotional abuse," it magically absolves her of personal responsibility. However, if she was "scammed," then it makes both parties responsible, one for deceiving, and the other for being foolish to fall for the deception.

It is a prideful person who would use deception to manipulate others, and it is also a prideful person who thinks they could not be scammed by someone. However, in this day and age, people misuse the word 'pride' in a positive sense, when in reality, it is a sin that condemned by the Word of God.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
-Proverbs 21:4

Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
-Psalm 101:5

Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto
the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
-Psalm 138:6

Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed,
which do err from thy commandments.
-Psalm 119:21

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
-1 John 2:16

Since I was young, I have repeatedly heard people say "I'm PROUD to be an American," when that very pride is the source of the problem. Being proud has blinded Americans to such an extreme degree that, as of 2024, we now have nonstop wars, we think paper is money, queers roam the streets in drag shows in front of children, pedophiles are running our country, and we have convinced a generation of boys to worship women.

To clarify, humility (the opposite of pride) and timidness are NOT the same thing. You can be both timid and prideful, which leads to problems, and you can be humble and bold, which are good qualities that exhibit sound wisdom:

timid (adj): fearful, wanting, courage to meet danger, not bold
humble (adj): low, opposed to high or lofty, modest, meek, submissive, opposed to proud, haughty, arrogant or assuming
(See 'timid' & 'humility', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Those who are prideful are selfish in their thinking, which often leads them to pay no attention to their surroundings, and those who look on timid people do not think they are prideful, which is not necessarily true. Again, prideful people are self-centered, and this leaves them open to manipulation by those who have experience taking advantage of others, and because there will never be a time in history where manipulative people will not exist, it is up to the responsibility of the individual to avoid being scammed.

For example, an angler fish is a bony fish with large teeth that has a luminescent fin that attracts other small fish with its light. Angler fish have been known to grow up to 6.5 feet (200cm) in length. If a diver were in the water and saw the light, without knowing it was an angler fish, and was attacked and killed once the diver got too close, we would simply say the diver was beguiled, got tricked, or was fooled by the lure, but we would not say the diver was "abused" by the fish.

Likewise, if a man had a pet tiger, and one day, the tiger killed the man and ate his corpse, would we call that "tiger abuse?" Was the cat emotionally abusing its owner? No, we would say that is a sad situation in which a man suffered the consequences of having a relationship with a dangerous creature.

Therefore, that is my advice to young men: Beware of having a relationship with a dangerous creature because, although the creature might look cute on the outside, inwardly, it can be ferocious. Do not judge according to the appearance alone.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

If women want to complain that females are weaker than males, and therefore more vulnerable, then that not only destroys the "independent strong woman" narrative pushed by feminists, but it also means that women need to have good relationships with men who are trustworthy. (i.e. fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, etc) Because women have a natural tendency to want to be dominated by a man stronger than her, women must depend on the analysis of reliable men (over her own feelings) to help her screen for potential danger in her dating relationships.

When women separate themselves from strong, moral men, they can easily end up in relationships with manipulative men, which can result in PHYSICAL abuse, but those relationships should be ended LONG before it gets to that point because I have seen many criminal cases where the woman ended up dead because she did not seek help. Likewise, but in a different way, men end up in relationships with manipulative women because they think they have no options, and that they will be alone if they do not tolerate the woman's misbehavior, so they also need to rely on other men to help them see the truth and encourage them to do right thing by cutting her out of his life.

Another commenter on the Reddit thread said "emotional abuse is abuse," but if that is the case, then it would just be called abuse, which is the point I have been trying to get people to understand. There are no spectrums of abuse; rather, there is just abuse, which has physical proof behind it (not speculative feelings), and can be demonstrated in a court of law.

Another commenter said:
"Dismissing emotional abuse makes it difficult for individuals facing such challenges to seek help. Emotional abuse is a real and recognized form of harm in relationships. It may not leave physical scars, but the effects can be just as damaging."
-Dry-Butterfly-8629, "What do you think if one says that emotional abuse doesn't exist?" retrieved May 3, 2024, [https://www.reddit.com/r/NarcissisticAbuse/comments/19feq1d/what_do_you_think_if_one_says_that_emotional/]

Saying that "emotional abuse does not exist" does not make it "difficult" for people to seek help. Inventing new feminist psuedo-scientific labels does not help people, but rather, the truth helps people.

Even under real abuse (i.e. physical abuse), there are many people who do not seek help until someone helps them step back from the situation and consider what is happening objectively, by putting aside their emotions, not leaning into them. Operating on emotions is what has gotten them into a troubled relationship in the first place. If they will not look at the situation in the light of good moral reasoning, then they will not leave the relationship under any circumstance, even if it involves domestic violence, and therefore, if someone is in a relationship with a dangerous, manipulative beast, they will not leave if they cannot acknowledge the truth, and I say this as someone who has watched friends and family descend into that darkness because they will not listen to reason.

The hilarious part of the above comment is that they claim there may not be any physical evidence, which proves my point: There is no such thing as emotional abuse, and no one can provide evidence of it. This is something that needs to be stricken from society because it allows women to "feel" like they are abused, and destroy a man life over their whimsical feelings rather than the truth, and furthermore, I firmly believe it is morally reprehensible to tell someone that being called names is as equally damaging as being hit with a frying pan or stabbed with a kitchen knife.

Our current justice system is following the whims of disgusting, vicious feminists into alienating men from their children and destroying families without the burden of proof that is normally required in a court of law. As I said before, there are legitmate claims of physical violence committed by men against women, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused, and until we return to our basic Constitutional premise of "innocent until proven guilty," women will get away with destroying the lives of men by crying: "Abuse!"

The Bible does not condone the beating of women and children, and I believe men who are physically abusive should be prosecuted by the law if things get out of control and he is beyond help from his family and friends, but the fact (according to the statistics we learned about in chapter four) is that women seem to be MORE prone to commit violence than men, so where is the prosecution of abusive women? It is quite scarce, but this problem gets even worse when we hear the stories of the men destroyed by the women who feigned "rape."



 

Are there instances of women getting raped in the United States? Of course. Is there a culture of rape in the United States? No.

rape (n): unlawful sexual intercourse, or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person subjected to such penetration
culture (n): the quality in a society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc; a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period
(See 'rape' & 'culture', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

If we agree on these defintions, we can determine that those who believe that we have a "culture of rape" in the United States (and other English-speaking countries) are arguing that we have society that values forced sexual entry against the will of a women as an excellent manner of civil activity. In other words, feminists argue that rape is a glorified action, systematically accepted across all forms of government, media, education, business, and religion.

It is likely the average reader understands that this is an insane argument to make considering that these things are NOT readily accepted in any of those aspects of our society, but this is what is argued on the website The Feminist Parent:
"Rape culture is an environment where girls must constantly live with instructions of what not to do: don't go here, don't go out at this hour, don't wear/drink/partake in that. Even if they aren't raped or killed, their sense of freedom and confidence is. The message is surrender your freedom or risk being robbed of it in the most terrible way imaginable. Rape culture refers to a cultural environment that creates a context where rape is okay or at least not that big of a deal. Rape culture normalizes, trivializes, accepts and even encourages gender violence."
-The Feminist Parent, "What Does Rape Culture Really Mean?" retrieved May 7, 2024, [https://www.thefeministparent.com/what-is-rape-culture]

There is so much to unpack here, I need to dedicate an entire chapter to demonstrate that this short paragraph is utterly ridiculous. To clarify, I mean that the absurdity of this statement is so backwards to reality, the anonymous feminist author who wrote it likely eats her Crayons with a spoon.

Women and girls being instructed on where to go and what to wear is just a way of life because taking care about where we go and what we wear is normal operating procedure for ANYONE doing just about anything. Mountain hikers must constantly live with instructions of what not to do, such as "don't go here, don't go out at this hour, don't wear/drink/partake in that," and even if they aren't injured or killed, "their sense of freedom and confidence is," so should we have nationwide backpack-burning protests so they can get attention and sympathy?

I was mocking the idea of the "bra-burning" protests of 1969, in which feminsts thought they were "freeing" women from the restaints of society, and that concept has gone so far down the philosophical toilet that, today, there are topless and even nude protests in broad daylight. Getting naked in the street to fight so-called "rape culture" is like having a hot-dog-eating contest to fight obesity, but despite the fact that feminists believe we have a "rape culture," for some miraculous reason, these women can freely protest nude and NOT get raped, which seems odd if "rape culture" existed.

Before we get into the surprising statistics of rape in America, I want readers to understand that EVERYONE must abide by certain rules when going out in public if they want to avoid danger. Author and self-defense instructor John Farnam was one of the leading self-defense experts in the nation at the turn of the 21st century, and he is most well-known for his "Three Don'ts" to minimize your risk of harm, and there are no exceptions to this, meaning that they apply to men, women, and children:

Don't do stupid things. Don't go to stupid places. Don't hang out with stupid people.

These rules are reasonable because there are many unreasonable, foolish people in this world who do not care if other people get hurt in the process of them having fun. Of course, doing any one of these things often increases the level of enjoyment one might have in an activity, but there is always a cost to the reward, meaning that the level of fun may be equally proportional to the level of risk, which means you must assess what risks you are willing to take in order to "have fun."

If a woman decides she wants to hang out with some dangerous people, she is breaking rule #3 to have a "fun" experience. If she willingly goes with these stupid people to a part of town that is known to be dangerous, then she is breaking rule #2, further increasing her risk. If she decides to wear a low-cut top and a mini-skirt on this excursion with stupid people in a stupid place, then she is maximizing her risk of danger, which would lead me to conclude that the one who is stupid is her.

Anyone who possesses something of value must take proper precautions to protect that valuable thing, which is why we have things like locks and safes, and in like manner, if a woman believes her body is of high value to men, then she needs to take precaution to protect it from those who would seek to steal the value of her body. Most people in society are not thieves, but if a bank had a truck of money without any locks, security guards, or other defensive measures, then the truck would become a beacon for the minority of society who are thieves, and likewise, most people in society are not rapists, but if a woman decides to go out wearing next to nothing, get drunk, and have no one there for her protection, then she becomes a beacon for the minority of society who are sexual deviants.

I have looked into many cases of criminal activity, and in instances where there is a woman raped and/or killed, it is often because she is with stupid people, in stupid places, and she chooses to do something stupid. Of course, this does not apply to all cases, but in many of them, I have seen this VERY common story: She goes out to a bar or club with her friends, wearing a promiscuous outfit, gets drunk, separates herself from her friends, goes to a dark area alone, and gets attacked, which could have been easily prevented if she was not doing something stupid, in stupid a place, with stupid people.

As we read a moment ago, feminists whine about men getting to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and women being subjected to horrible, enslaving restrictions put on them by men. However, in a grand display of stupidity and willful ignorance, feminists fail to recognize that what they are whining about is what men have to deal with on a regular basis, and that most men do so without complaint.

In chapter two, we learned that homicides in the U.S. had a much higher rate of male victims than female. Although feminists complain that they are always told what to do by men for their own safety, men simply walking down the street are 3.6 times MORE likely to be killed than women, which means men have much more to fear than women do, which results in the freedoms of men being far more restricted than women, and it also means that men generally have a better idea of what is best for safety than women.
(See U.S. Department of Justice, "Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement," Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243035, December, 2013, retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf])

Jeff Cooper was a Marine Corps veteran who served in 1941 during World War II, and he became well-known for his book, Principles of Personal Defense, which has been used to educate law enforcement in proper use of force to match real-time situations. In his book, he described four basic categories of situational awareness:

(See Jeff Cooper, Principles of Personal Defense, Paladin Press, 2006, ISBN: 9781581604955)

Upon opening the door to leave their home, most men spent most of their time in the yellow zone, being aware of their surroundings, and because of this, it allows women to live most of their lives in the white zone, where true femininity florishes. This is why the nuclear family works so efficiently because the man, who is the strongest of the family, is on constant yellow alert, keeping an eye out for orange situations (automatically detering a great deal of potential danger, just by being on alert), which allows the woman to remain in the more stress-free white zone, so she can focus on the needs of the children.

However, when arrogant feminists claim they "don't need no man," they eliminate the body guard functionality of men, and therefore, women must then live in the yellow zone, a place where they cannot fully be feminine. Women hate the stress of constantly being on guard, and so instead of admitting that they were wrong (i.e. that they do indeed need men), they demand that society not make them be in full alert, and so loony feminists blame danger itself for existing.

This also creates an odd contradiction that I believe most people (especially feminists) do not often consider. On one hand, feminists claim they are "strong, independent women" that are so empowered, but on the other hand, they complain that they cannot go anywhere without facing threats of danger from men, so this leaves us at an impasse: Either you are a strong, independent woman that "don't need no man," or you are a helpless victim — you cannot be both.

This is sometimes referred to as "Schrödinger's feminist," which is a reference to "Schrödinger's cat," a thought experiment concerning quantum superposition in which exited molecules can exist in two places at the same time. In simple terms, if a cat were put in a box with a deadly poison, the cat could be seen as either alive or dead by definition, posing questions about when one reality ends and another begins, and likewise, a woman is either powerful or powerless, leaving us to question how she can be both when the two are as contradictory as life and death.

Thus, feminists want to have their cake and eat it too because they want to be strong and a victim at the same time. These women want the privilege of victimhood, while also having power, but without any of the responsibility that comes with power. They want to have the privilege to live in the white zone at all times, while not having to live under the protecting authority of a man who makes sacrifices that are deserving of respect. Feminists are the living embodiment of contradiction and hypocrisy, they alone are the sole cause of their ignorance, terrible choices, and failures, but blame men for them to avoid accountability.

Again, I emphasize my definition of feminism:

Feminism is the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices.

A feminist blogger, who claims she was raped (although if you read her vague description of the alleged event, it sounds incredible and far-fetched), says that all men are rapists by default:
"Let me tell you sisters, all men are disgusting animals, PIGS! Every time a man sees a woman, he undresses her in his mind, and that is the first offense. It's the precursor to rape; he is premeditating rape. Even if he doesn't go through with it, he has the mind of a rapist. It's no different from a man pointing a gun at you. He shows intent even if he fails to pull the trigger."
-Annemarie R. Weissberg, "All Men Are Rapists!" Femminist-Fatale, Dec 4, 2012, retrieved May 14, 2024, [https://thefemministfatale.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/all-men-are-rapists/]


The above image is a photo of the author of this blog, and by only a quick glance, I can conclude that the willful degeneration of her appearance, her overly generous Body Mass Index, and her violent demeanor is more than enough to keep any rapist at bay. In short, rapists most often target young, soft, beautiful, healthy, and kind women; the complete opposite of whatever creature is in that photo.

This creates another contradiction because a woman being soft, beautiful, healthy, and gentle are feminine traits, but she can only be those things if a man is present to protect and provide with his strength, so she has a safe space for her feminine traits to flourish. Men live according to their masculine nature without the presence of women, but women cannot live according to feminine nature without men. This means that being a "feminist" (as defined by early 21st century leftist media) is a contradiction of itself because true femininity cannot exist without the foundation of masculinity.

Feminist journalist for The Guardian Newspaper, Julie Bindel, posted just the same kind of nonsensical garbage on her public Twitter account: "Dear misogynist trolls I'm going to make things easier for you - save u some time. All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot"
-Julie Bindel, quoted by Paul Bois, "Feminist: 'All Men Are Rapists'," Truth Revolt, Aug 15, 2016, retrieved May 14, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160821201142/truthrevolt.org/news/feminist-all-men-are-rapists]

When she says "all men," she is condemning everyone, including her father, brothers, sons (assuming she has not murdered them in the womb), and even complete strangers she has never spoken to, myself included. She says that everyone of us should be put in prison and shot, which seems like a very female thing to say because of its inefficiency. (i.e. Why not just shoot them without having to drag them to prison first?) Furthermore, she accuses "all men" (again, including her father, brothers, sons, and even complete strangers like me) of raping or wanting to rape women, even though I have never done such a thing, nor do I recall ever having enjoyable thoughts of it, so is the purpose of feminism to help us lowly scum of the earth acknowledge that, despite what we experience and witness in reality, we are all just genetically predisposed to rape and kill women?

Where is all this hostility coming from? Why are innocent men being accused of doing something they obviously did not do? Why are men being automatically presumed to have committed thought crimes? Most of this deception is born out of false statistics and lies (from feminists) that have convinced gullible women that we (in the U.S.) live in a "rape culture."

Marshall University has a Women's Center website in which they define what they mean by a rape culture:
"Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture."
-Women's Center, "What is the 'Rape Culture'?" Marshall University, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20180726233031/https://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/]

So all we need to do is ask ourselves questions about our society based on what these feminists said about the definition of a 'rape culture'. Is rape prevalent?

prevalent (adj): widespread, of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance
(See 'prevalent', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In other words, is rape widespead in the United States, to the point that it is a general practice that accepted? If it was, we could easily walk out our front door and watch women getting raped in the streets, but in some miraculous twist of fate, women seem to walk down the street, past hundreds, if not thousands, of men (sometimes daily) without suffering any harm at all.

Obviously, this means that rape is not "normalized," but is rape "excused in the media and popular culture?" Unsurprisingly, the feminists from Marshall University did not provide any references to any real-life examples of what they are talking about, and I would challenge readers to point to anything or anyone in the media, anywhere in America, where rape is excused as a normal practice because I can almost guarantee that it does not exist, and that is simply because we do not live in "rape culture."

The Marshall University article provides some generalized, arbitrary "examples" of "rape culture," and I will come back to those later, but first, let's look at some of the statistics that feminists do not want you to see. The Indian Journal of Psychiatry gives clear examples of true rape cultures in foreign countries like India and Africa:
"Various cultures describe certain forms of sexual violence that are condemned and other forms that may be tolerated to a degree, the culturally legitimized forms of violence thus giving rise to a continuum with transgressive coercion [socially accepted forced compliance] at one end to tolerated coercion at the other. For example, in South Africa, only the rape of white women was prosecuted under an apartheid system, while sexual violence against black women was accepted as a part of life. Childhood marriages in certain parts of rural India involve marriage and sexual relationship with a girl who is not yet an adult. It, thus, amounts to sexual coercion and is considered illegal. However, the entire issue is sanctioned by personal laws defined by individuals who partake in such marriages as condoned by Khap Panchayats [i.e. Indian village union] who decide on marriage partners in certain parts of North India. Similarly, sexual violence is considered legitimate by young men in South Africa who also believe that mental health is negatively affected by lack of sex."
-Gurvinder Kalra & Dinesh Bhugra, "Sexual violence against women: Understanding cross-cultural intersections," Indian Journal of Psychiatry, Jul-Sept, 2013, p. 244-249, U.S. National Library of Medicine, PMCID: PMC3777345, DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.117139, retrieved May 14, 2024, [https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777345]

Of course, not every place in Africa and India has the same rules, meaning that women will not be raped just because they visit Africa or India, but in certain regions within those countries/continents, there exist cultures that accept rape as a normal part of life. These are actual rape cultures that are systematic, meaning that they are reinforced by government, or rather, they are permitted due to a lack of prosecution of the criminal act of rape.

Some points to consider about American courts of law:

Rape is prosecuted as a crime, and depending on the severity, can have life-long consequences, including life imprisonment, and life-long listing in a sex offender registration program. Women who prove they were raped in a court of law are awarded restitution for damages. Men who are proven to be guilty of rape in jury trials are punished; they are not allowed to go free as one might expect in a rape culture.

Never in my life have I met one person, male or female, in the United States who thinks that rape is socially acceptable in any fashion, which is contrary to the feminist narrative that we live in a "rape culture." Rape is not normalized in this country, nor is it excused in the media. Feminists often attempt to deceive people on the statistics, claiming that rape is a common crime against women, but the truth is much different than they lead us to believe.

Barack Obama, former President of the United States, who has become infamous for his dishonesty and corrupt policies (which have helped to enslave our nation), gave a speech in 2014, in which he said:
"Today, we're taking another important step with a focus on our college campuses. It is estimated that 1 in 5 women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there — 1 in 5. These young women worked so hard just to get into college, often their parents are doing everything they can to help them pay for it. So when they finally make it there only to be assaulted, that is not just a nightmare for them and their families, it's an affront to everything they've worked so hard to achieve. It's totally unacceptable."
-Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President and Vice President at an Event for the Council on Women and Girls," The White House, Jan 22, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2024, [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/22/remarks-president-and-vice-president-event-council-women-and-girls]

When I first read the transcript of this speech, I thought it was very strange because I used to live spitting-distance away from Ohio State University; just across the street from the campus border. During the four years I lived there, I never once heard of anyone being raped on campus, nor did I ever hear of anyone who knew anyone who had been raped.

I had many female friends at the time who lived on campus because they attended school there, and it was quite safe for them. I (and many others) frequently traveled along its well-lit sidewalks at night, and there was an emergency station around every corner that had a phone and button to press for emergency campus security to help in case of attack, so as far as I could tell, this was one of the most secure and safest places for a young woman to walk.

If what Obama said was true, I should have not only heard about rapes, but statistically speaking, I should have met more women who had personally been raped on campus, or at least met others who knew someone who been raped on campus and thus, what Obama said did not match what I saw. As unsurprising as it may be, it turns out the corrupt President just repeated talking points he was given by feminists, and those feminists learned it from one feminist who pulled the numbers out of a rigged survey, and we will look at the details of that survey in a moment.

In 2014, the same year Obama gave his speech, the U.S. Department of Justice released a special report (NCJ 248471) on rape and sexual assault among college-age females that was taken from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) between the years of 1995-2013. They found that the rate of rape among students was 6.1 per 1,000, or in other words, whereas Obama was claiming that there was a 20% rate of rape among college students, in reality, there was only a 0.6% rate of rape, which is 1:164, not 1:5.
(See Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved May 15, 2024, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf])

It is also interesting to note that, according to this study, it is extraordinarily uncommon for women to be raped by strangers:
"For both college students and nonstudents, the offender was known to the victim in about 80% of rape and sexual assault victimizations."
-Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved May 15, 2024, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]

The legacy fake news media has done a masterful job in convincing the public that, when they think of a woman being raped on campus, they should imagine a complete stranger wearing all black and hiding in a dark alley. They are taught to imagine this stranger jumping out from behind some boxes, grabbing the woman, and assaulting her, but in fact, that is not how the vast majority of rapes occur.

The DOJ report continues to point out:
"Most (51%) student rape and sexual assault victimizations occurred while the victim was pursuing leisure activities away from home,"
-Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved May 15, 2024, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]

So once we take into consideration that only about 20% of the 1:164 rape cases are commited by a stranger unknown to the victim, that comes out to 1:820 female students, and when also considering that more than half of those rapes are committed while partying (i.e. doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places), the real statistic for a random stranger jumping out of the bushes to rape a woman on a college campus is more around 1 in 1,640, or a 0.06% chance. These numbers are EXTREMELY low for a so-called "rape culture," but foolish and vindictive feminists continue to deceive the public with fake, made-up statistics that will help their ridiculous agenda of shaming and destroying men for creating a very safe environment for women to live.

Feminist Jessica Valenti (who authored secular gems such as The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, and another called Why Have Kids?), in a blog post she wrote called "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One," which conveniently had no statistics, said:
"Rape is as American as apple pie—until we own that, nothing will change."
-Jessica Valenti, "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One," The Nation, Jan 4, 2013, retrieved May 15, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160319151711/thenation.com/article/americas-rape-problem-we-refuse-admit-there-one]

This is what I mean when I say that feminists are pushing a false narrative to convince people there is a rape culture in America, and they are doing so in order to paint themselves as "victims," so they have a reason to whine, complain, and get more privileges added to the vast array of privileges they already have, which they did not earn and (in many cases) do not deserve. These kinds of statements are extremely common in the feminist movement, and it is also quite common to see no statistics, studies, or reports to back up their claims.

So where did Obama get the 20-25% number? Dr. Christina Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., noticed the frequency of the "1-in-4" used by organizations claiming the U.S. to be a rape culture, and after thorough research, she found the "1-in-4" number came from propaganda pushed by the infamous Ms. Magazine, in a 1985 article authored by Mary Koss, a professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio:
"'One in four' has since become the official figure on women's rape victimization cited in women's studies departments, rape crisis centers, women's magazines, and on protest buttons and posters. Susan Faludi defended it in a Newsweek story on sexual correctness. Naomi Wolf refers to it in The Beauty Myth, calculating that acquaintance rape is 'more common than lefthandedness, alcoholism, and heart attacks.' 'One in four' is chanted in 'Take Back the Night' processions, and it is the number given in the date rape brochures handed out at freshman orientation at colleges and universities around the country. Politicians, from Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, a Democrat, to Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, cite it regularly, and it is the primary reason for the Title IV, 'Safe Campuses for Women' provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993, which provides twenty million dollars to combat rape on college campuses. When Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare, first read the 'one in four' figure in the school newspaper, he was convinced it could not be accurate. The results did not tally with the findings of almost all previous research on rape."
-Christina H. Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 212, ISBN: 9780684801568

We will continue with this quote in a moment, but again, the first time I heard the "1-in-4" statistic, I found it to be beyond absurd because we would hear about local rapes all the time, pretty much every week. That does not match anything remotely close to what I experienced in my lifetime. I have known women who have been raped (and it was not just a claim, they had the receipts to back it up), and granted, it is a horrible experience for them that has long-lasting ramifications, but still, of all the women I have spoken to, it is a rarity to meet one who has been legitimately raped, and of those very few who told me about their rape experience, it never happened on campus, and it was committed by someone who they knew very well (typically, a family member) in a house they frequented.

However, the statistic that feminists are quoting has NOTHING to do with actual rape, and it has EVERYTHING to do with women regretting their bad choices when participating in fornication and adultery:
"'When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why [Mary] Koss's [1985 Ms. Magazine] approach was unsound. He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered 'yes' to the question 'Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?' That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been 'administered' an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him."
-Christina H. Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 212, ISBN: 9780684801568

If feminists were not here to tell us otherwise, we might suspect that feminism, in general, is the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices. Just because a woman might immediately regret her poor decisions, it does NOT give her justification to destroy a man's life, and it is for this reason that men's rights groups have spread counter-propaganda against the lies of feminism, as can be seen in the following image.


The definition of rape specifies that it is sexual interaction "without consent," which is a necessary condition, otherwise, it is just typical fornication and adultery, or in a simpler form, rape with consent is just sex. This is why, in Deuteronomy, God set up His law so that, if a woman was forced upon sexually, and she did not cry out for help, it was considered to be her knowing consent, and both the man and woman were guilty of fornication/adultery, or in other words, the woman gave in to sexual passions (and, if she was married, cheated) on her man willingly, so both the woman and the man she had sex with were to be executed by the Israeli government.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Thus, if a woman does not voice (or show strong indication of) objection, it is consent, which is also known as "silent consent" or "quiet acceptance." Of course, there are some extreme cases where this might not apply (e.g. if a child was being raped by an adult, and was silent out of fear rather than consent), but the context of this chapter is about two adults with knowledge of what they are doing.

Mary Koss (the feminist author in Ms. Magazine) argued (if not, heavily implied) that a woman who drinks alcohol can no longer consent to sex, which is ludicous because if that applies to women, then it applies to men as well, meaning that if a man is intoxicated, then he would also no longer have the ability to consent to sex, which would then make rape impossible if alcohol was involved. If a man was drunk and a woman was not drunk, and the two had sex, according to the fallacious ideology of Koss, the woman raped the man because he could not consent, but that is not logical, nor is it how the law works.

If one says that the drunk man forced himself on the woman, could we then say a drunk woman forced herself on the man? What if both parties are drunk? Would we then conclude that both could not consent, and therefore, if they had sex, should we say they bothed raped each other? These questions are nonsensical simply because, before sexual interaction took place, one or both people consented to drinking alcohol, which means they also consented to drunkenness with full knowledge that it would impede their mental faculties.

For example, the same week I wrote this paragraph, I saw a video of police bodycam footage, in which officers engaged with a woman who had flipped her car on its side in a suburb, after she hit a parked car on the side of the road. As soon as the officer began to talk to the woman, she was slurring her words and had trouble standing up straight, clearing indicating that she was drunk. (She did not have any injuries, likely because she was drunk, since drunkness relaxes the body and prevents many injuries that are incurred due to a sober body fearfully tensing before impact.)

In fact, this woman was so drunk, she could not say whether or not she was driving her vehicle, and she said the car that allegedly "hit her" was not parked. She also said she only had one, and I quote, "beer cocktail" (whatever that is supposed to mean), she said she was an attorney (which was not true), and that she had no idea how her car got flipped on its side, despite the fact that the bodycam footage showed the parked vehicle damaged and pushed back into the yard of the owner about 10 meters away.
(See Police Watch, "Entitled Drunk Woman Crashes And Flips Her Car Then Acts Like A Complete Brat," Dec 4, 2023, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_adcsdFDZMU])

The authors of Ms. Magazine should be shocked and appalled that this woman was arrested and taken to prison for DUI (Driving Under the Influence) because, according to the absurd feminist ideology, she was intoxicated and could not consent to drive. According to feminist logic (or lack thereof), this woman should not only have all charges against her dropped, but she should sue the owner of the parked car for her damages because she could not consent to drive. If any readers have not already figured it out, the point I am making is that if people cannot be held accountable for their actions after they willingly and knowingly drank alcohol, then alcohol could be used as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free" card that could make anyone immune to prosecution, and could make anyone who briefly interacted with the drunk person liable for any damages that may have occurred while he/she is intoxicated.

As a side note, in the United States, public service announcement advertisements have heavily increased over the last 40 years because driving under the influence of alcohol (and drugs) has become a problem due to the lowered moral standards in the 1960s and 70s, and the fact that vehicles were being designed for speed and convenience rather than safety. (i.e. No more steel framed vehicles, so they can travel faster; research Studebaker if you want to know what cars used to be like.) Because of this, drunk drivers caused much more damage and injury to others, including my own parents, who narrowly avoided being killed by a drunk driver when I was young.

The interesting thing about the advertisements against drunk driving is that they primarily feature men in the driver's seat because statistics have shown that the vast majority of DUI arrests are male. Of course, we can imagine that feminists will leap out of their chairs and scream "AHA!" as if they have finally found a reason to accuse men of being the problem. However, there is a VERY important factor that is not taken into consideration when concerning male versus female drunk drivers, and that is because women typically go to the same bars as men, but women travel in groups, often getting a taxi or Uber driver, and if she leaves the bar with a man, the man is the driver.

If these advertisements want to be accurate, they should show a drunk woman in the passenger seat of the vehicle, but not only do they not show that, many people do not take into consideration that only the driver of the vehicle will be arrested, and therefore, the women are often not held accountable. However, because so many women have destroyed chivilary and adopted the "don't-need-no-man" attitude, more women are driving than ever before, and now the statistics are changing.

According to the Accident Analysis & Prevention Journal, male DUI arrests have slowly dropped, while female DUI arrests have heavily increased:
"The rate of women arrested for DUI has almost doubled since 1980. Over the past ten years, DUI arrests among men have decreased by 7.5%, while female DUI arrests have increased by 28.8%."
-Angela A. Robertson & Hui Liew, "An evaluation of the narrowing gender gap in DUI arrests," Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, Issue #4, July 2011, p. 1414-1420, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457511000388]

The reasons for this change have only been speculated, but there are two primary reasons that are key, and the first is as I just said, women have stopped relying on men to be in charge, and have started driving more on their own. The second reason is due to men generally being benevolent to women, being prone to give females a warning, allowing women to get away with more than they do with men (i.e. FEMALE privilege), and so now that more women have taken up positions as law enforcement officers, female officers do not typically show as much mercy to female drivers. (i.e. Women benefit more under a patriarchal system, so feminists are only hurting women in the long term.)

Putting aside the drunken factors, Sommers goes on to point out that only 25% of the surveyed women considered the incident to be sexual assault, which means that (when the surveyed women were asked the question "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?") 75% of the women surveyed said it was consentual sex. Of that 25% who said it was not consentual, 40% chose to have sex with the accused man again later, and since continued consent to sexual intercourse is not a normal relationship pattern rape victims develop with their rapist, this means that the statistics from Ms. Magazine were fixed to create the illusion of a rape culture, which in turn furthers the agenda of malicious women to get more privileges by using their state simp legislators to force men into slave labor to pay for the feelings of women.

The phrase "rape culture" did not become a popular term until after a documentary was published in 1975, conveniently titled "Rape Culture," but the timing was interesting because, while the crew was filming this documentary in the early 1970s, rape was punishable by death across the U.S. It was not until 1977 (Coker v. Georgia) that the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was "grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime," and I would agree with that, but only under very specific circumstances based on what the Bible commanded the Israeli goverment to do concerning the punishment of rapists.
(See "Rape Culture: The Movie," retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdVENIVaJY]; See also Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 1977, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-dressler/principles-of-punishment/coker-v-georgia/])

In the days of the Jews under the Old Testament, if a man forced a woman to have sex, and she was already betrothed or married to another man, the rapist was to be put to death. This means that a death sentence was justified in this instance, however, if we go back to Deuteronomy 22 and read more, it says:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

There are a few things we need to consider here; first of all, that if a man rapes a woman and takes her virginity, which at the time in Israel was a very valuable asset, he has essentially stripped her of her most valuable commodity, which women use to secure a strong, kind, and resourceful husband. If the government simply executes the rapist, how does the female victim get restitution for that which was taken from her?

In the context of courts of law, the general purpose of punishment is twofold: To give restitution to the injury party, and to make society a safer place in which to live and raise a family. Executing the rapist serves the purpose of making society safer, but it does NOT provide restitution to the victim because rape is not just assault, it is theft, and judges around the world should look at rape charges in that way.

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
-Exodus 22:1

If we look at theft under the Old Testament law, God did not command thieves to be put in jail, but rather, thieves had to pay back four to five times what they stole, and this was to compensate the victims. Today, thieves get thrown in prison, but they typically do not end up paying back the full amount of what they stole (especially after considering the time wasted and grief of the victim), and in our society, they certainly do not have to pay back multiple times what they stole, which means that the victims do not get compensation for the crime against them as they did under God's law.

Women only get one virginity which cannot be retrieved once lost, so a man cannot properly compesate a woman for something that precious. Therefore, since a woman's sacred virginity was so prized, it was valued by the rapist's life, which would be taken one of two ways; either the rapist paid with life in the sense of execution (if she already belonged to another man who could take care of her), or he paid with his life by first providing a hefty sum for the victim's family (who were also wronged by the action of rape), and then he had to, under pain of death, provide for that woman for the rest of his life, being unable to divorce her for any reason, meaning that she could make his life a living hell.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem would be to make a man who raped a woman make payments to her for many years, similar to alimony, but only under a strict propoderance of evidence, heard by a jury in a fair court trial, proving her case that she prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. Women are known to lie, especially in cases where they know they will get money, and to solve that problem, we only need to establish law that if a woman is proven to have lied about a man raping her, she would then have to suffer the same punishment he would have been given if it were true.

However, what is currently happening is that men are put on trial by media because women are allowed to ruin a man's life only on the accusation of rape, rather than by evidence via due process of law. Furthermore, courts have permitted women to change the definition of rape to bring their cases, in which women can claim their "yes" really meant "no" because she did not like the results of her bad choices, which has resulted in creating a society where men are afraid to approach women because their lives might destroyed in an instant.

That being said, consider for a moment that, if we truly lived in a "rape culture" that was ruled over by a massive conglomerate of rapists, then why did the the federal government and 16 states (in 1971) collectively decide that rape should be punishable by death? Why would men who liked to rape women pass laws that would give themselves harsher punishments for what they liked to do? The reason this makes no sense is because feminists are LYING, both to us and to themselves, about the U.S. being a "rape culture."
(See U.S. Department of Justice, "Death as a Penalty For Rape is Cruel and Unusual Punishment," NCJ 50027, Wisconsin Law Review, 1978, p. 253-268, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/constitutional-law-criminal-law-eighth-amendment-death-penalty-rape])

Since feminists only care about women, it is ironic how they insult African women, some of which live in a REAL rape culture, with the false claims of "rape" American feminists espouse. TIME Magazine reported statistics taken from human-rights organizations that estimated over 40% of African women being raped in their lifetime, and that women are punished for being raped, which correctly matches the definition of "rape culture" presented by feminsit organizations.
(See Lee Middleton, "'Corrective Rape': Fighting a South African Scourge," TIME, Mar 8, 2011, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2057744,00.html])

Malicious and disgusting feminist Jessica Valenti (who I quoted earlier about rape and apple pie) participated in a debate against a woman by the name of Wendy McElroy, who revealed some interesting facts in her investigative journalism:

MCELROY "There are parts of Afghanistan, for example, where women... are murdered for men's honor, they are raped, and when they are raped, they are arrested for it, and they are shunned by their family afterward. Now that's a rape culture, but that is not North America! It doesn't resemble North America. Here, rape is a crime that is severely punished; even the accusation of sexual harassment can ruin someone's career and their lives... the messages sent to men today is not that it's okay to rape; it's the opposite, and according to the... Department of Justice, rape and sexual assault have decreased by more than half since 1993, so why aren't we celebrating? North America is not a rape culture, and it is an insult to women who live in one that women here, with so much freedom and so much opportunity, are trying to share the same status with them. I often hear statistics meant to prove to me that things are far, far worse for women here than I'm making out, but there are problems with the statistics used to support a rape culture. Many researchers have tried to find out where they come from, what they're based on, and it is an incredibly hard task. For example, a recently circulated claim is that 8% of college men have either attempted or successfully raped, and I'll be dwelling on this stat for a reason. Some associates and I have tried to track it down, and it's typical of what happens over and over again when people try to track down these stats and find out 'where are they based, what are they rooted in?' A key reason why I find no evidence for systemic rape culture, only evidence of rapes committed by individuals, is because the data doesn't exist. We traced the figure back to a book called Body Wars by the clinical psychologist Margo Maine... quote, '8% of college men have attempted or successfully raped, 30% say they would rape if they could get away with it. When the wording was changed to force a woman to have sex, the number jumped to 58%. Worse still, 83.5% argued that some women look like they are just asking to be raped.' End quote. I stumbled when I first read the 83.5% figure because it seemed improbable to me that a scientifically-based study, first of all, would ask that question, and second of all, that would be the result. And again, I'm a woman who's known an unusual amount violence; I'm hardly naive on this subject. When the National Post, which is a major Canadian paper, decided to follow up on the questions we were raising about the stats in Maine's book, a reporter contacted her. She was largely unable to give her sources. There was one study she reported, and to quote the book again, 'In one study over half of high school boys and nearly half of the girls stated that rape was acceptable if the male was sexually aroused.' End quote. No one, including Maine, was able to come up with that study! No one has found it yet! When pressed, Maine emailed the National Post, basically saying she didn't know where it came from, she didn't know why it hadn't been cited, and she was too busy to bother. Well, I'm too busy to bother giving it credibility."

(See Wendy McElroy, "Wendy McElroy Discusses the Illusion of Rape Culture," CLE YouTube Channel June 23, 2021, retrieved May 16, 2024, [https://youtu.be/pag9jBVRzBs])

I included this quote because there are aspects of McElroy's speech that I applaud, but please keep in mind that she still has some serious ideological error and is heavily biased towards feminism. The part that I applaud is her honesty in exposing the truth, namely, that MANY feminist authors quote from other feminist authors instead of doing their own research, and so all it takes is for one feminist to make up a false statistic (either by flat-out lying, or through idiocy because she did not understand the source material), and hundreds of other feminist authors will parrot those false numbers to push their hateful agenda.

As I stated earlier, it is an indirect insult to real victims of actual rape culture for pampered American women to claim they are oppressed because they felt regret about waking up in a strange man's apartment on Sunday morning (and subsequently taking a "walk of shame" back to her apartment with vomit breath, still wearing her skimpy party dress and high heels), but there is a problem that McElroy either is willing blind to, or refused to address. McElroy cares more about the women who are raped half a world away, but does not seem to care about the men who are the victims of feminist "rape culture" propaganda.

To be fair, McElroy makes general mention of men who suffer because of the feminists' false accusations. However, she did not give any examples of men suffering due to false rape allegations (which was the topic of her speech), and how that has destroyed the lives of innocent men because, as I pointed out at the beginning of this book, feminism has nothing to do with equality, which is why McElroy spent more time talking about how American feminism has negatively affected other WOMEN around the world, instead of focusing on the damage it has caused men here at home.

To help demonstrate my point, let's briefly look at the story of Brian Banks:
"Brian Banks was 16 years old in the summer of 2002, a 6-foot-2, 220-pound linebacker with speed at powerhouse Long Beach Polytechnic High in Southern California, as promising a football player as any high school kid in the country. As one of the most highly recruited middle linebackers in the nation, he had a verbal commitment to play on full scholarship for Pete Carroll at USC. What could be better than that? 'I would go to these football camps and just dominate,' Banks says. 'I had my own mailbox at school because I was getting so many recruiting letters.' [In 2002] He was taking summer classes at his high school and left the classroom for what was supposed to be a quick call to a documentary crew preparing a feature on the rivalry with De La Salle High School in Northern California. 'I stepped outside to make the phone call and I ran into a classmate of mine,' Banks says. Her name was Wanetta Gibson. She was a friend. She was 15. 'We met, hugged, started talking and agreed to go to an area on our campus that was known as a make-out area,' Banks says. 'We went to this area and made out. We never had sex.' By the end of the day, Banks was in custody, accused of raping Gibson on the school's campus. But we never had sex, Banks pleaded. Nobody believed him. 'I was being arrested and accused of kidnapping and rape,' he says. 'I was taken into custody that same day and the judge put a bail on me that was too high for me to post bond. It was over $1 million.' He languished in juvenile hall for an entire year before his case came up. He was to be tried as an adult and if found guilty, faced 41 years to life. His football dreams effectively died that summer day in the stairwell of his school."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://www.nydailynews.com/2015/01/25/brian-banks-spent-five-years-in-prison-after-being-falsely-accused-of-rape-but-now-he-finally-has-a-career-in-nfl/]

Banks' alleged "rape" of Gibson was plastered on every major news headline across the country. Banks was arrested for rape, given a $1 million bail (which he obviously could not pay), and sat in juvenile hall (i.e. under-18 jail) for a year before he was sentenced 41 years to life, so there must have been some extremely powerful evidence against him, right? The only evidence prosecutors had was a teenage girl who made a CLAIM, without ANY supporting witnesses or investigation, and Banks' life was ruined instantly.

When I read about this story, I was horrified by what happened to that young man, and thoroughly angry at how something so ludicrous could happen in America because we are supposed to operate on the philosophy of "innocent until PROVEN guilty," not "guilty until proven innocent." However, there is one thing about this that is MORE ludicrous than what happened to Banks, and that is how anyone could believe that such a thing could happen in a "rape culture."

"Banks was offered a deal to plead guilty to one count of rape under the condition that the other charges would be dropped. He would then undergo a 90-day observation at Chino State prison and would be interviewed and evaluated by psychologists and counselors 'who would determine on a ladder system whether I would receive probation or three or six years prison,' Banks says. 'I was promised and guaranteed by my attorney that I would get probation if I took the plea. I was also told that if I didn't take it, I would more than likely be found guilty and receive life in prison.' He was 17 years old. 'Do I plead to a crime that I did not commit and receive a small sentence or do I roll the dice, risk my entire life behind bars for a crime I didn't commit?' he says. 'I realized that day, regardless of whatever my decision was, neither one of them was going home an innocent man.' All he could think about was getting his life back, going home, playing football, finishing his high school education, enrolling at USC. They put him in a room and gave him 10 minutes to make his decision. He sat there crying. 'I was unable to speak to my mom. I was denied that right,' he says... He underwent the 90-day observation. The psychologist and counselor recommended probation. The judge gave him six years. He had never been in trouble before, not even a speeding ticket... Banks lost 10 years of his life, a frightful five years and two months in prison followed by five years of high custody parole."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://www.nydailynews.com/2015/01/25/brian-banks-spent-five-years-in-prison-after-being-falsely-accused-of-rape-but-now-he-finally-has-a-career-in-nfl/]

Even though there was no supporting evidence, the question remains: Did Banks rape Gibson? After Banks came home from prison, he opened a Facebook account, and to his surprise, he got a friend request from the woman who accused him of raping her, saying that she wanted to "let bygones be bygones" and offered to "hook up," so Banks saw a golden opportunity to hire a private investigator and get a confession from her.

"Banks still doesn't know her reasoning for selling him down the river when she knew they never had sex and there was no DNA trace on her underwear. Maybe it was the $1.5 million she collected from the Long Beach school system, claiming it was an unsafe environment (the city is trying to recoup $2.6 million from her now). Banks thinks maybe Gibson was afraid her older sister, who went to the same high school, would find out she made out with him and tell her mother. Or that he would brag to friends. Maybe she thought he would just be suspended. He doesn't think she was trying to put him in jail.... 'We don't really know what the truth really is as to why she lied,' he says. 'I never really got a clear reason.'... He invited Wanetta Gibson to the investigator's office. They spoke with the investigator monitoring in another room. Banks wanted her to understand what she did to his life. He asked her to come back the second day to speak to the investigator. 'Did he rape you? Did he kidnap you?' the investigator asked. Banks said she laughed it off and said, 'Of course not. If he raped me, I wouldn't be here right now. We were just young and having a good time, being curious, then all these other people got involved and blew it out of proportion.' It was all on tape. Banks took it to the California Innocence Project, which took his case and appealed it. One year later, three months before he was to come off parole, Banks was cleared. On May 24, 2012, the same Los Angeles Superior Court judge who had sentenced Banks to six years in prison when he begrudgingly accepted a plea bargain for a crime he did not commit after he was led to believe he would get probation, took less than one minute to dismiss his conviction."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://www.nydailynews.com/2015/01/25/brian-banks-spent-five-years-in-prison-after-being-falsely-accused-of-rape-but-now-he-finally-has-a-career-in-nfl/]

Banks was arrested, charged, and sentenced on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. In fact, I watched part of the hidden camera video when Gibson was asked if she did it, and her answer was astonishing to me:
"PI: When did you lose your virginity? Was it after him, or before him?
GIBSON: After him."
-Interview with Wanetta Gibson, "Brian Banks: #FalseRape Accuser Recants," Oct 2, 2016, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://youtu.be/1cHZ8l44Y2U?si=IRdMBDMZSCqlzL_J&t=200]

In case some readers may not understand why I included this quote, this means that, because there was no trial, there was no real investigation because a simple rape kit analysis would have determined that her hymen was still intact, which would have disproven her claim of rape. It is speculated that Gibson was out later than she was supposed to be with a boy, and to avoid getting in trouble, she lied about what happened to her. Either way, whether by pressure from friends, family, or her school, Gibson LIED, and not only destroyed a man's life, but collected $1.5 million dollars from the school, which she did not want to have to pay back by telling the truth because she quickly blew through all the money and ended up broke a few years later.

Who had all the power in that situation? Who had all the privilege? Why is it that in a so-called "rape culture," when a woman's testimony is involved, men suddenly have to prove their own innocence?

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19

A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it;
and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
-Proverbs 26:28
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Of course, feminists can only respond to this by regurgitating the feminist narrative, just as political commentator Ana Cox did on fake news station MSNBC:
"Anyone who thinks that women are out there reporting, you know, doing false reports of rape, need to ask the woman closest to them in their lives about this. Ask a woman that you know if she would do that, or if she thinks that other women would do that, you will get the answer 'No.'"
-Ana M. Cox, "2014 Feminist Ana Marie Cox: Women dont lie about rape," Dec 12, 2014, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://youtu.be/DJD1xr-mHeQ?si=DxaXJYBpqWtPDRUG&t=349]

Women are generally known to lie to save face, and are quick to do so, even among those who I know to be more honest women. Women tend to lie to avoid responsibility and accountability because they have seen how easy it is to get away with it, and therefore, it eventually becomes instinctual for women to lie in unfavorable situations. In other words, what Cox was asking us to do is ask a liar if she would lie, which is pointless and nonsensical.

However, I believe I could improve upon her question by asking women: Have you EVER, at any time in your life, even in insignificant situations, lied to avoid being held accountable for your words or actions? Everyone has done it at some point, even as children, and so it becomes a moot point to ask "if they would" because they already have; the only difference is how extreme the consequences become for the victim.

Feminist Donna Zuckerberg, in an article she wrote claiming that false rape allegations are a myth, said:
"The most commonly accepted statistic is that 2-8 percent of rape allegations are false."
-Donna Zuckerberg, "He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation," Jezebel.com, Sept 30, 2015, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://www.jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]

The report Zuckerberg referred to was published by the State of Idaho, and it stated that their statistics showed 2-10%, not 2-8%, which was based on a limited study of 136 cases. I point this out to provide supporting evidence for McElroy's aformentioned argument that feminists often have their numbers wrong.

Also, it should be noted that 2-10% is a 500% margin of error, and I do not believe that is the fault of the researchers in any way because, as they rightly point out:
"As in any domain of research, you cannot accurately measure what you cannot reliably define. Unfortunately, many published reports either do not explicitly define what constitutes a false rape allegation or they rely on data that demonstrably include many cases that fall outside the parameters of accepted definitions. To classify a case as a false allegation, a thorough investigation must yield evidence that a crime did not occur."
-David Lisak & Lori Gardinier, "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases," DOI: 10.1177/107780120387747, 2010, p. 1319, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140718182649/http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf]; See also [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21164210/]

The researchers go on to quote from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, concerning their issuing of papers on sexual assault investigations:
"The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assaut did not happen."
-David Lisak & Lori Gardinier, "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases," DOI: 10.1177/107780120387747, 2010, p. 1319, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140718182649/http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf]; See also [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21164210/]

Proving that something did NOT happen is extremely difficult in most cases, and often requires a lot of manpower that costs too much money, assuming it can even be done in the first place because, as the IACP said, most cases would end up in the "unsubstantiated" pile (as opposed to disproven) because no one can prove a universal negative. For example, if I said that one in ten rainbows had a pot of gold at the end of it, it would be up to me to prove the statement true, but it would be absurd to flip it around and put the burden of proof on you to prove me wrong because it would be impossible to prove that statement was false unless you could be in all places, at all times, at the same time.

Back in 2015, commenters on Zuckerberg's blog began to complain about her numbers, claiming that she was seriously wrong about what she stated. Zuckerberg then partially corrected herself:
"To be clear, I didn't mean to endorse this statistic as fact, although I see now that the paragraph break makes it look that way... I don't know if it's right."
-Donna Zuckerberg, "He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation," Jezebel.com, Sept 30, 2015, retrieved May 17, 2024, [https://www.jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]

Zuckerberg was deceiving her audience to cover for herself because any time someone quotes a statistic based on a study referenced from a state institution, the number is being stated as a fact, and thus, to say that she "didn't mean to endorse this statistic as fact" is a bold-faced lie. She then confessed that she had no idea whether or not the statistic was correct, but found it convenient write down because it helped push more feminist propaganda, and apparently, she was so distraught with her error, she decided to do the charitable thing and leave it in the article so others would repeat the same error.

Though guilty, Zuckerberg is not soley responsible, as many feminists have spread around this "2%" number to make it seem like 98% of all rape allegations are true, so they can #BelieveAllWomen. Some feminists also cite a 1996 FBI report, which said:
"As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies 'unfound' the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The 'unfounded' rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were 'unfounded,' while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."
-Crime in the U.S., 1996, DIANE Publishing, 1997, p. 24, ISBN: 9780788121609

So feminists see the "2%," quickly grab a marker to scribble it down on a piece of used cardboard, and then run around topless through the streets screaming "Only 2%!" into a megaphone. The word most feminists do not understand is "unfounded," and it is vital to learn about this so we know why the percentages feminists are yowling about do not have a basis in reality.

The End Violence Against Women International group put out a bulletin explaining the difference between "unfounded" and "false:"
"According to UCR (Unfounded Crime Reports) guidelines, a reported offense can be cleared as unfounded 'if the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor was attempted.' These [unfounded] cases thus remain as official crime reports and are included in the departmental statistics on sexual assault crimes that are reported to the UCR... UCR guidelines are clear that a report can only be determined to be false on the basis of evidence that the crime was not committed or attempted."
-Clearance Methods for Sexual Assault, "Part 3: Unfounding False vs. Baseless Reports," End Violence Against Women International, retrieved June 4, 2024, [https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/TBClearnaceMethodsforSA1-7Combined.pdf]

So unless evidence is brought forth that proves the accuser (i.e. the woman) is lying, it is listed as "unfounded," which automatically gets added to the number of proven rape cases in these statistics. In case that is not clear enough, this means that even if no evidence is presented that a rape has occurred, it is still counted as a rape statistic, or in other words, a man will have a rape connected to his personal record simply by a woman's CLAIM of rape, unless he provides evidence that is he is innocent.

So many of you might be asking why 'unfounded' cases are added rape statistics if we live in a rape culture? There is no good answer to this other than we live in a gynocentric (i.e. female-worshiping) society that gives women the status of godhood, and forces men to be guilty until proven innocent. Feminists could not care less if the numbers are true or not, so long as they can make themselves look like victims, and continue their malicious and arrogant crusade to destroy men, who slowly kill themselves to provide a society of privilege and comfort for the women who hate them.

In 1993, Newsweek reported that:
"A third of the DNA scans now routinely done in new rape investigations are nonmatches."
-Newsweek, "Genetics in the Courtroom," Jan 10, 1993, retrieved June 4, 2024, [https://www.newsweek.com/genetics-courtroom-192258]

In context, the Newsweek article was reporting old cases that were being reanalyzed with DNA testing (which may not have been available or affordable at the time), and with this new evidence, innocent men, who had spent many years in prison, were being exonerated for a crime they did not commit. This means that in the past, when a woman has accused a man of rape, and seminal fluids are collected as evidence during the investigation, the DNA results find that 1-in-3 women were lying about the accused man.

Please keep in mind that things have gotten worse, not better, over time. False accusations among women have increased as feminism's influence grows, and so it is very likely that, as of 2024, the numbers are substantially higher than the 1-in-3 found in the reopened cases from the 80s and 90s.

False accusation is not gender-specific, but it is a common tactic of females because women (by nature) have less authority and strength than men, and so to get any kind of dominance, they must manipulate other men into thinking that the women are victims, and this is a tactic they have used for the past six thousand years of the earth's history. For example, after being sold into slavery, Joseph's master put him in charge of all his property, and while he was away, the wife of Joseph's master tried to get Joseph to have sex with her, but Joseph refused her attempts of seduction:

There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he [Joseph's master] kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
-Genesis 39:9-10

Since nothing she said worked, she attempted to trap him:

And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. [i.e. no eye-witness = no evidence] And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
-Genesis 39:11-12

Even though Joseph did the right thing, we now have a situation where a woman was rejected by a man, and she wants revenge because he dared to hurt her feelings. She has no power in this situation to get what she wants, so in order to get her way, she has to manipulate other men into thinking she is a victim by falsely accusing Joseph:

And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.
-Genesis 39:13-15

The master's wife cried "Rape!" to all the men of the house so they would all think Joseph was guilty because, according to feminists, we should #BelieveAllWomen because a woman would NEVER lie about such a thing. When the master of the house returned, she told him the same lie:

And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.
-Genesis 39:16-20

Although this was extraordinarily unjust, it should be noted that God later gave Joseph far more authority after this incident. Joseph was given secondary command over all Egypt, and through the help of God, ended up saving thousands of lives, including that of his own brothers who sold him into slavery in the first place.

Another thing that should be noted is that the master's "wrath was kindled," but it never says who kindled his wrath. It is my theory that his wrath was NOT kindled against Joseph, who he favored, but rather, it was kindled against his wife, who he knew was dishonest, and although he did not want to put Joseph in prison, he anger was kindled also that he would have to do it for political reasons, to appease the other male simp servants who trusted in her crocodile tears.

In 1994, Dr. Eugene Kanin published a study of a small community with a population of 70,000 people. In a nine-year period, from 1978 to 1987, he found 109 reported cases of rape, and out of 109 reports, 45 of them (41%) were false reports in which the woman lied about an innocent man:
"These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration [a female-specific anomaly], as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 81, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

The study investigated each year individually, and found that false rape allegations were made as low as 27% to as high as 70%, and did not correlate with any known trends. They primarily consisted of a mostly "lower socioeconomic background," most had at least a high school education, and the median age was 22. It should be noted that these cases were not "unfounded," but rather, were confessed by the women who made the false allegations, meaning that the percentage of false allegations of rape could be substantially higher than 41% in this study, but this only included cases that were proven false by confession.

None of the women recanted of their confession after being told they would be charged, and when each woman were questioned why she falsely accused a man of rap, she was either trying to provide an alibi to avoid being charged with other crimes, she was seeking revenge because she did not get her way, or she thought she would get sympathy and attention. These women were willing to destroy a man's life for petty, self-serving reasons, and as we have seen in more modern cases, women can now get huge legal payouts for lying about men, and until laws change to punish women harshly for false allegations, this pattern will only get worse over time.

However, more to the point of my definition of feminism, which is the perpetual whining of females who do not want to be held accountable for their bad choices, there were other reasons given to avoid responsibility and shame:
"An unmarried 16-year-old female had sex with her boyfriend and later became concerned that she might be pregnant. She said she had been raped by an unknown assailant in the hopes that the hospital would give her something to abort the possible pregnancy.
A married 30-year-old female reported that she had been raped in her apartment complex. During the polygraph examination, she admitted that she was a willing partner. She reported that she had been raped because her partner did not stop before ejaculation, as he had agreed, and she was afraid she was pregnant. Her husband is overseas."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 81, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

I understand there are many who will strongly disagree with my definition of feminism, but I stand by it, and the evidence strongly supports my definition. These women were not raped, but rather, they simply regretted their decision, and had no problem wasting taxpayer resources and destroying the lives of men to avoid accountability for their bad choices.

Many of these cases have to do with fornication and adultery. The world will continue to do these things, but for Christians, this is why we are warned against these sins:

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
-1 Corinthians 6:18

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
-1 Corinthians 7:2

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
-Ephesians 5:3

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption... Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
-2 Peter 2:12-15

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
-Hebrews 13:4

For the purpose this chapter, I want readers to understand that, although feminists are lying to us by saying that instances of false rape allegations are rare, the truth is that they are very common, to the point that police should listen to (and properly process) all claims, but also maintain a healthy skeptcism because women lie so frequently. For example, Cassandra Tucker of Spokane, Washington filed a false police report because she wanted to convince her husband that she had been robbed and raped while she was out running errands:
"Tucker says she was just a few blocks from her home when someone driving a white Ford Crown Victoria pulled her over in the alley near Magnolia and Mission. She claimed the suspect sexually assaulted her and then stole $150 from her purse. Police dispatched five officers to investigate including one to look through surveillance video taken by cameras at Stevens Elementary just across the street... Police took Tucker to Deaconess Medical Center in the hopes of gathering biological evidence of the sexual assault. While in the emergency room detectives learned those cameras at the school never saw a plain-wrapped police car or the victim's vehicle. About the same time one of Tucker's friends told investigators something else. Tucker reportedly wanted to make it easy for her husband to believe that she really had been abducted... At the hospital a detective confronted Tucker with the new information and that's when she admitted she had made up the whole incident."
-Jeff Humphrey, "Prosecutors leveling charges against woman who filed false report," KXLY, Apr 18, 2015, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.kxly.com/news/local-news/prosecutors-leveling-charges-against-woman-who-filed-false-report/article_eafdf479-3b79-56ba-827c-9ddc45a51183.html]

Police also discovered that Cassandra had a prior warrant out for her arrest because she had already been in trouble with the law surrounding her drug abuse, and it turns out that Cassandra was spending her husband's money on drugs behind his back. Thus, she came up with the "rape allegation" to justify the missing money so she would not be held accountable for her bad choices.

Please keep in mind that wasting resources of emergencies services can be a matter of life and death. When a woman falsely reports something that takes up the time of law enforcement, they are not actively on the street, and in an emergency situation in which other officers need immediate assistance, people can die, and so I find it to be one of the most digusting and dispicable things that a woman would think her saving face is so valuable that it is worth shedding the blood of others to protect her from potential embarrassment.

In Fort Collins, Colorado, Katherine Bennett accused a co-worker (who she had recently started dating) of sexual assault, and the man was arrested. Instead of presuming the man was innocent until proven guilty, they jailed him until he was proven innocent. After thorough investigation, Kathreine's story fell apart, as there was no evidence to support her claims. The man was eventually released, Katherine received a mere 35 days in jail and probation; meanwhile, the man was fired from his job, could not find work for six months because he was an accused rapist, and still struggles to pick up the pieces of his broken life and severed relationships.
(See Denver7, "Man wrongly accused of rape speaks out one year later," Nov 27, 2014, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://youtu.be/UCUSmJurqrU?si=GqO0T29mfI0k1bKt])

In 2001, Thomas Kennedy of Kelso, Washington was false accused of rape by his then 11-year-old daughter, Cassandra. Kennedy was sentenced to 15 years in prison based on Cassandra's testimony alone, without any other supporting evidence except some physical trama to her genitals, and all of Kennedy's attempts to appeal failed.

Ten years later, at age 22, Cassandra finally came to the police to admit her claims of rape were false:
"At a hearing in March 2012, Cassandra testified that the physical evidence of trauma to her genitals was because she had begun engaging in sexual activity as early as the second grade [roughly eight-years-old] with a boy in her class. She said the rape allegation came about after a friend's step-father went to prison for a child sex crime. Cassandra said that she concocted the allegation to make her father 'go away,' because he was drinking and smoking marijuana. She testified that she may have known what to tell police to be convincing from watching movies or walking into bedrooms when adults were having sex... Kennedy was released from custody. On March 27 [2012], the prosecution then dismissed the charges. In September 2014, Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Michael Evans ordered the state to pay Kennedy $519,973 for his 3,242 days in prison, the year he was registered as a sex offender and his attorney's fees."
-National Registry of Exonerations, "Thomas Kennedy," retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3892]

Kennedy got a measley $160/day for the state stripping him of his freedom, not fulfilling its duty to prosecute based on evidence, allowing his daughter to ruin his life by nothing more than her word, and for having his work reputation destroyed, meaning that he could not go back to work as an equipment operator, which was his job before he was arrested. For the two and half years between his release and his restitution from the state, he was homeless (in part due to his poor health), which is really odd considering how much we are told by feminists that men have so much "male privilege" and that we live in a "rape culture."

Despite ten years in prison, and despite the lying tongue of his daughter (Pro 6:16-17), knowing what she did and keeping it secret for a decade, Kennedy (part of the "evil" patriarchy) wanted to reunite with his daughter. He even expressed that what he wanted most was for his daughter to forgive herself, and this is because, in general, men are far more benevolent to women, than women are to men.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officer Jared Frazier stopped and arrested Deanna Griego for DUI, and once at the police station, she told the officer that she needed to use the restroom, which prompted him to uncuff her and allow her a moment of privacy, but he did not remember that she had hidden her phone in her bra:
"Frazier says he then heard her in the bathroom asking, 'How can I get this officer in trouble?' and remembered that she has slipped her cell phone into her bra during the initial traffic stop. Frazier says he slightly opened the bathroom door, telling her she was not allowed to be on her phone and that she needed to step out of the restroom. Griego said that he was 'violating her rights' by opening the door, but Frazier pointed out that he could not see her and told her again to step out. Griego then accused him of sexual assault, saying, '[You were] inappropriately touching me while I was waiting in the car,' and, 'Please don't touch me,' as she exited the bathroom. Frazier reminded the woman that she could say whatever she wanted to, because the entire incident was recorded by his lapel cam, and it was clear there was no sexual assault. The woman's claims were investigated, and Frazier was cleared of any wrongdoing."
-Law Firm of Oklahoma, "Woman Tries to Frame Police Officer for Sexual Assault," Oct 22, 2014, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.lawfirmofoklahoma.com/blog/woman-tries-to-frame-police-officer-for-sexual-assault]

In Volusia County, Florida, a 13-year-old girl came home later than her curfew, claiming that she had been sexually assaulted by a man with a knife, resulting in the Sheriff's office bringing out 13 patrol cars, dogs, and a helicopter to search for the assailaint. They spent one and a half days searching through the surrounding woods. It turns out that the girl had been out with a boy against her parents' instructions, and did not want to get in trouble, so she made up a fake story, and normally, the Sheriff's office would not press charges for a 13-year-old, but because the girl showed no remorse for what she did, they pressed charges for making a false report.
-Daytona Beach News-Journal, "Deputies seek to prosecute girl, 13, for fake rape report," Feb 10, 2011, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/2011/02/11/deputies-seek-to-prosecute-girl-13-for-fake-rape-report/30573763007/]

In New Jersey, Biurny Peguero claimed to have been gang-raped by three men in a van, and by her testimony alone, William McCaffery was sentenced to prison, even though there was no DNA evidence linking him to the alleged crime. A rape kit was used, and it came back negative, meaning that there was no evidence of rape, but McCaffery was convicted anyway. After spending four years in prison, Peguero came forward and admitted she lied about the whole thing, that the men in the van never touched her, and that the bruises she had were simply the result of a fight with someone else AFTER exiting the van.
(See Edecio Martinez, "Biurny Peguero Says Gang Rape Story Was Hoax; Man She Put in Jail 5 Years Isn't Laughing," CBS News, Dec 9, 2009, retrieved

When the story of her rape allegation broke, she was interviewed by reporters and told them their sob story that McCaffrey hit her, bit her, removed her pants, and raped her. McCaffrey filed suit against the City of New York and the New York Police Department for ignoring evidence and making false claims about Peguero's wounds:
"The suit, which was filed on Wednesday and names police and prosecutors... Mr. McCaffrey, from the Bronx, alleges that prosecutors 'impugned' his 'truthful evidence' regarding the bites in front of jurors, then sat on Peguero's recantation of her false allegations for two months after learning she had confessed to her priest, the New York Post reports. In addition, the suit says prosecutors 'continued to oppose McCaffrey's release' despite defence DNA testing that proved one of Peguero's friends, Aurora Pujols, had bitten her."
-Daily Mail, "Man who spent four years in jail for rape he didn't commit sues New York City for $30m," Mar 11, 2011, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365084/William-McCaffrey-sues-New-York-City-30m-false-rape-claim.html]

What I found to be pathetic and insulting is how the media covered this story:
"Rev. Guberovic [Catholic priest], who was hailed a hero for his role, told the New York Post at the time: 'She's the hero, not me.' Callan [Peguero's attorney] added: 'It took enormous courage to turn herself in. It was something that was spiritually motivated. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose.' 'She was having trouble sleeping. She's been haunted by guilt.'"
-Daily Mail, "Man who spent four years in jail for rape he didn't commit sues New York City for $30m," Mar 11, 2011, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365084/William-McCaffrey-sues-New-York-City-30m-false-rape-claim.html]

Here comes Pegeuro to save the day in her white super hero cape! She's faster than a speeding bullet, more girl-boss than a locomotive, and leaped tall buildings in a single bound to save an innocent man who was put in prison BECAUSE OF HER LIES!

"Tonight, we are hearing from a woman who admits to lying about being raped. The man who she accused of rape went to Sing Sing [Prison], while she lived with the guilt."
-ABC News 7, "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation 5," Feminism Sucks, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://youtu.be/N1Pb2s82mH4?si=MLF7uqBV3dWUdNXF&t=308]

The man went to prison, but the important part for us all to take note of is how much the woman suffered by living with the guilt. Certainly, living freely with some guilt is obviously equivalent to, or perhaps much worse than, having one's reputation destroyed, losing all freedom, and having to live daily with the threat of violent criminals all around you for four years; that is practically nothing compared to the bad feelings felt by a woman.

The story of her lie was reported on in 2010 by ABC 7's then-reporter Chris Cuomo, who went on to be a lead CNN anchor and helped propogate the lies of the COVID scam-demic. He reported how hard it was for the woman:
"CUOMO: She went into a [Catholic] confessional. She had to make it right; it wasn't enough to confess that she committed the lie—said the lie—but she had to make it right, and that would wind up taking tremendous sacrifice...
FEMALE ANCHOR: It had to have been a very difficult decision after all that time to come forward with it, knowing the possible outcome."
-ABC News 7, "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation 5," Feminism Sucks, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://youtu.be/N1Pb2s82mH4?si=0vX62UVnVzeEzjmX&t=380]

Please note how horrible it must have been for a woman to have to stop her perpetual whining, and take accountability for her bad choices. Apparently, it is not a big deal when a man's life is destroyed, but when a woman has to face consequences for her words and actions, gynocentricism demands that the tales of her bravery and courage make headline news.

McCaffery was facing 20 years in prison (despite the fact that there were two other men in the van, and no one else was convicted), while Peguero only got three years (because she was a mother of two; a.k.a. FEMALE privilege), and she could get out early with good behavior. Meanwhile, McCaffrey filed a $30 million law suit against the city and police department for covering up evidence, but sadly, that does not punish the city or police (with firings and prosecution); it punishes the taxpayers of New York.

Just reverse the roles for a moment and let's suppose that a man had lied about a woman committing a crime, and she went to prison for it. If he came forward and confessed that he lied, the media would have done everything they could to defame him, and the judge would have thrown the book at him, but when it is a woman, her crimes make her a valiant heroine, she gets a slap on the wrist, and someday, I would not be surprised to see a book about her story.

Sadly, women ignoring the plights of men to gain sympathy is so commonplace, even those who hate what is happening to men do it by default. Female attorney Jonna Spilbor said:
"Falsely reporting any crime is shameful. Falsely reporting a rape is especially heinous. The liar who files the false claim dishonors — and makes life all the more difficult for — the many true victims who file genuine rape claims because they have been terribly violated, and seek justice for it. At the same time, and perhaps even more seriously, the false report begins to destroy the reputation, and sometimes the life, of the accused from the very moment it is made — a fact of which many accusers are keenly aware."
-Jonna Spilbor, quoted by Brent E. Turvey, Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Academic Press, 2011, p. 396, ISBN: 9780080569352

Although I appreciate Spilbor's comments about the destruction of men, notice that it is a secondary thought to women. She also added the word "perhaps," meaning that making things a bit harder on some other women in some aspects of society, in her mind, is often equal to or greater than the grief of men being thrown in prison, ruining their reputations and careers, depriving them of their children, and even leaving them homeless, which, if any of these things were happening to a woman, the world would riot in protest.

The following video I uploaded many years ago shows examples of false rape accusations, including a filmed incident in which there is a lot of strong language used, so viewer discretion advised:
In the latter part of the video, a cab driver was accused of rape by a group of drunk girls who decided to light up cigarettes in his vehicle as he drove them home, which he told them was a $500 fine. The girls refused to pay the cab driver or the fine, called the police, and accused him of rape. The police would have arrested him on the spot, but he had a hidden camera in the car, so he showed law enforcement the video, and they decided not to arrest him.

However, the police did not arrest the girls either, and the cab driver was obviously outraged because he would have lost his job, gone to jail, and possibly lost his wife if he had not had video evidence to defend himself. The cab driver filed a $60,000 civil suit against the women, and I hope he won his case, but he got no help from law enforcement because they are women in a gynocentric society, and therefore females can do no wrong.

This chapter will be infuriating to many readers, and you are right to be angry, but try to keep in mind that the majority of women are not feminists; they have just been infected with some feminist ideology. I have provided these many examples to show readers the dark side of feminism that we often do not get to see, and to help readers understand the nature of women is different from men, and if we are to solve the problem, both men and women need to acknowledge female nature so proper discipline can be applied to keep women in line; else, society devolves into the madness we see today.

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
-Ephesians 4:26

Laurie Ann Martinez, a 36-year-old psychologist for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, faked her own rape:
"She split her own lip with a pin, scraped her knuckles with sandpaper and had her friend punch her in the face. Investigators say she even ripped open her blouse, then wet her pants to give the appearance she had been knocked unconscious. But it was all part of what authorities said Friday was an elaborate hoax by the woman to convince her husband she was raped so they could move to a safer neighborhood... Missing from her home were two laptop computers, Martinez's purse, an Xbox video game console, a camera and numerous credit cards that Martinez said the stranger had stolen. In reality, the items were all at the home of her friend, Nicole April Snyder, authorities allege. Investigators say Martinez had Snyder punch her in the face with boxing gloves they bought for that purpose. Martinez began crying hysterically when police arrived, according to court papers."
-New York Daily News, "California prison psychiatrist accused of faking her own rape," Associated Press, Dec 10, 2011, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.nydailynews.com/2011/12/10/california-prison-psychiatrist-accused-of-faking-her-own-rape/]

Joseph Frey was wrongly convicted of raping a female student in Wisconsin and spent 20 years in jail for it, until the case was re-opened with DNA evidence that cleared him of any involvement. When he was arrested, he told the police he was nowhere near her home, and they had no evidence that linked him to the scene, but because the public was outraged at the time (due to trial-by-popular-media) and demanded justice, the resulting witch hunt led to his immediate conviction of a crime he did not commit. Frey was released, but with nothing, no home and no possessions except the clothes on his back.
(See Mike Lowe, "Wisconsin man wrongly convicted still hasn't found ultimate freedom," Nov 5, 2013, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.fox6now.com/news/wisconsin-man-wrongly-convicted-still-hasnt-found-ultimate-freedom])

Teenager Tyler Kost was arrested and thrown in jail for allegedly raping 13 girls between 2009-2014, all between the ages of 13 and 17, but Kost's lawyers have recently uncovered what they call a "treasure trove" of evidence that he did not rape any of those girls. Based on written evidence on their social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter, the girls were all former girlfriends of Kost, and conspired together to frame Kost, all of them getting together to watch the movie John Tucker Must Die, which is about women getting revenge on a man they were all dating at the same time. The girls stated, "He [Tyler Kost] needs to be taught a lesson" and that it was "gonna be so much fun! <3" Kost's law team analyzed 98,000 pages of social media documentation, which was from only five out of the thirteen girls, and they requested court permission to analyze the rest of the eight girls' accounts.
(See Daily Mail, "Lawyers for teen accused of raping 13 girls claim they were inspired by high school movie John Tucker Must Die and framed him because he was 'a player'," Apr 7, 2015, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [http://dailym.ai/1FSjN75]; See also AZ Channel 3 News, "San Tan Valley serial rape suspect back in jail," Aug 7, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160809114214/azfamily.com/story/32705001/san-tan-valley-serial-rape-suspect-back-in-jail])

This is another case in which prosecutors pressured a teenage boy into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit, offering him a lesser sentence so they could add another conviction notch to their belts in hopes of a promotion. He plead guilty to over 20 charges, including attempted sexual conduct with a minor and child abuse. However, after reviewing the social media accounts of lying girls, Kost's parents, who had attended every hearing, were not outside the courthouse to meet their son because the court pushed through the order of his release so quickly, they did not receive word about it until after he was released.

"A sheriff's investigator who worked the case was terminated for malfeasance, evidence was improperly collected, and interviews with witnesses were mishandled, according to Kost's lawyers. 'It is upsetting that a politician used some kids on both sides of this case for political gain,' Hamby said Friday after the hearing."
-Robert Anglen, "San Tan Valley man Tyler Kost released from jail after 3 years in teen sex-crimes case," AZ Central, Feb 17, 2017, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/pinal/2017/02/17/san-tan-valley-man-tyler-kost-released-jail-after-3-years-teen-sex-crimes-case/98070516/]

Although Kost acted inappropriately in some cases relating to his relationship with them, the girls were just looking for revenge, and the fact is that they lied to get him thrown in jail. Despite this, the judge ordered that Kost must still register as a sex offender because women are allowed to lie without much consequence.

Back in 2016, I typed the name "Ross Currier" into a search engine, and immediately pulled up many articles talking about his charges of rape because a woman claimed he raped her, and without any due process, police arrested and jailed him. Allegedly, the woman was sexually assaulted, but it turns out she mistakenly accused the wrong man, and he had a solid alibi, proving he was home with his fiancé the night of the rape.

Currier was a tax accountant, but because the police jumped to conclusions without proper investigation, and because the gynocentric media pushed the story without evidence, Currier's name was connected to rape. He lost his job, he could not find work, and it took years for search engines to correct the articles, showing that he was NOT guilty of the rape allegations against him, but this shows us that a woman, even unintentionally, destroys the lives of men with only the word "rape" being mentioned, which is an odd occurence if we live in a "rape culture."
(See Travis Andersen, "Man wants apology after assault arrest," Boston Globe, Apr 9, 2014, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/09/prosecutors-drop-north-end-sex-assault-charge-citing-new-evidence/IaQdbWFT8F7hiuasjH4b0N/story.html])

Worse still, women do not have to lie for themselves; women can lie for other women. This was demonstrated in the sad case of Colordo State athlete Grant Neal, who was charged with rape, and he is now suing the U.S. government for gender discrimination.

Neal and a female student were having unprotected sexual intercourse, during which she stopped him and asked him to wear protection, which he did, and the female student told a friend about it the next day. The female friend said it was rape, contacted college authorities and reported a rape without the knowledge of the female student, and even though both Neal and the female student Neal was with that night told the school board that no rape took place, but the school refused to listen, and proceeded with prosecuting Neal for sexual assault.
(See Max Kutner, "Suspended College Athlete Suing U.S. Over Sexual Assault 'Guidance'," Newsweek, Apr 4, 2016, retrieved June 6, 2024, [https://www.newsweek.com/grant-neal-lawsuit-sexual-assault-pueblo-450334])

Let's look again at Dr. Kanin's 1994 study (showing that an average of 41% of women lied about being raped), and if you remember, the study pointed that these false reports in which the woman lied were not from lack of evidence, but the women involved later openly admitted they lied. Here are some more reasons why the women said they lied:
"‣ A divorced female, 25 years of age, whose parents have custody of her 4-year-old child. She lost custody at the time of her divorce when she was declared an unfit mother. She was out with a male friend and got into a fight. He blackened her eye and cut her lip. She claimed she was raped and beaten by him so that she could explain her injuries. She did not want to admit she was in a drunken brawl, as this admission would have jeopardized her upcoming custody hearing.
‣ A 16-year-old complainant, her girlfriend, and two male companions were having a drinking party at her home. She openly invited one of the males, a casual friend, to have sex with her. Later in the evening, two other male acquaintances dropped in and, in the presence of all, her sex partner "bragged" that he had just had sex with her. She quickly ran out to another girlfriend's house and told her she had been raped. Soon, her mother was called and the police were notified. Two days later, when confronted with the contradictory stories of her companions, she admitted that she had not been raped. Her charge of rape was primarily motivated by an urgent desire to defuse what surely would be public information among her friends at school the next day, her promiscuity.
‣ A 37-year-old woman reported having been raped 'by some nigger.' She gave conflicting reports of the incident on two occasions and, when confronted with these, she admitted that the entire story was a fabrication. She feared her boyfriend had given her 'some sexual disease,' and she wanted to be sent to the hospital to 'get checked out.' She wanted a respectable reason, i.e., as an innocent victim of rape, to explain the acquisition of her infection."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 85, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

These women made bad choices, and they did not want to suffer the consequences for their decisions. So they lied, and they were more than happy to destroy the lives of innocent men, if it meant they could be saved from the horrifying tribulation of little embarrassment.

If we continue to look at the study, we also find that women wanted revenge:
"‣ An 18-year-old woman was having sex with a boarder [a live-in helper who works in exchange for room and meals] in her mother's house for a period of 3 months. When the mother learned of her behavior from other boarders, the mother ordered the man to leave. The complainant learned that her lover was packing and she went to his room and told him she would be ready to leave with him in an hour. He responded with 'who the hell wants you.' She briefly argued with him and then proceeded to the police station to report that he had raped her. She admitted the false charge during the polygraph examination.
‣ A 17-year-old female came to headquarters and said that she had been raped by a house parent in the group home in which she lived. A female house parent accompanied her to the station and told the police she did not believe that a rape had occurred. The complainant failed the polygraph examination and then admitted that she liked the house parent, and when he refused her advances, she reported the rape to 'get even with him.'
‣ A 16-year-old reported she was raped, and her boyfriend was charged. She later admitted that she was 'mad at him' because he was seeing another girl, and she 'wanted to get him into trouble.'"
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 85-86, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

These women are ready and willing to destroy the life of a man for the noble and honorable reason of "she felt like it" because, in a gynocentric society, the feelings of a woman is more important than the truth. Some women are so petty and desperate for attention, they are willing to sacrifice a man's life so they can be in the spotlight:
"‣ An unmarried female, age 17, abruptly left her girlfriends in the park one afternoon allegedly to go riding with a young man, a stranger she met earlier that morning who wanted her to smoke marijuana with him. Later that day, she told her friends she was raped by this man. Her friends reported the incident to the police, and the alleged victim went along with the rape charge because 'I didn't want them to know that I lied to them.' She explained that she manufactured this story because she wanted the attention.
‣ An unmarried female, age 17, had been having violent quarrels with her mother who was critical of her laziness and style of life. She reported that she was raped so that her mother would 'get off my back and give me a little sympathy.'
‣ An unmarried female, age 41, was in postdivorce counseling, and she wanted more attention and sympathy from her counselor because she 'liked him.' She fabricated a rape episode, and he took her to the police station and assisted her in making the charge. She could not back out since she would have to admit lying to him. She admitted the false allegation when she was offered to be polygraphed."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 85-86, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

I want to emphasize again that, just because 41% of the women confessed to lying, that does NOT automatically make the other 59% allegations true. These were only the women who openly admitted it, and as we saw earlier, many of the other cases are listed as "unfounded," which means they have no physical evidence or witnesses that can corroborate the woman's story, so there is likely a much higher rate of lying than we can see on the surface.

Kanin concludes the study with even more intriguing finds from two state universities in conjunction with local police:
"In 1988, we gained access to the police records of two large Midwestern state universities. With the assistance of the chief investigating officers for rape offenses, all forcible rape complaints during the past 3 years were examined... the false allegation cases were combined, n = 32. This represents exactly 50% of all forcible rape complaints reported on both campuses. [i.e. 32 out of 64 total from both colleges over three years were false allegations] Quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge... In both police agencies, the taking of the complaint and the follow-up investigation was the exclusive responsibility of a ranking female officer. Neither agency employed the polygraph and neither declared the complaint false without a recantation of the charge. Most striking is the patterning of the reasons for the false allegations given by the complainants, a patterning similar to that found for the nonstudent city complainants. Approximately one half (53%) of the false charges were verbalized as serving an alibi function. In every case, consensual sexual involvement led to problems whose solution seemed to be found in the filing of a rape charge. The complaints motivated by revenge, about 44%, were of the same seemingly trivial and spiteful nature as those encountered by the city police agency. Only one complainant fell into the attention/sympathy category. These unanticipated but supportive parallel findings on university populations suggest that the complications and conflicts of heterosexual involvements are independent of educational level. In fact, we found nothing substantially different here from those cases encountered by our city police agency."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 88, retrieved June 5, 2024, [https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bowen-Kanin-False-Rape-Empirical.pdf]

This study found that reasons for female false rape allegations was not just secluded to university campuses, but spread throughout the general population, and police agencies were found to have almost the exact same rate of false charges (roughly 50%), and about the same types of reasons with almost the same percentages as Kanin's study. It is also important to note that there was no pattern found for the educational level, meaning that no matter their station in society, and despite their varying lifestyles, women commonly lie, using that influence to force men into unjust suffering, so the women can save themselves the natural consequences of embarrassment and grief brought about by their actions.

There is an old saying that has been passed down through many generations, and although it is often credited to Socrates (which would indicate that it is thousands of years old), I am unaware of anyone who has been able to track down solid evidence of the origin of the quote. The saying reads, "Trust not a woman when she weeps, for it is her nature to weep when she wants her will," and wherever the quote came from, it is timelessly true.

In the 1980s, just a few years after the release of the Rape Culture documentary, investigators took note of a shocking rise in accusations from women against their husbands for child sexual abuse, which went from an average of 7% to an average of 30%. Anyone in their right mind would find it hard to believe that one out of three men are raping their children, and upon closer investigation, it was discovered that the sudden rise in rape allegations was not because men started raping children, but rather, the problem was forked-tongue of women who became more bold after they realized they could use daddy-government to destroy a man and take everything he worked so hard to build:
"There is disagreement over how many of these accusations are false, although most estimates range between 20% and 80%. Thoennes and her colleagues report that in 33% of the cases in their survey no abuse was believed to have occurred. Abuse was believed likely in 50%, and in 17% no determination could be reached (Thoennes & Pearson 1 988a, 1 988b; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990). [i.e. 50% of cases did not have sufficient evidence, with another 17% unfounded] However, the criterion for determination was the opinion of custody evaluators and child protection workers rather than the decision of the justice system. In over 500 cases of sexual abuse allegations where we have provided expert consultation over the past 6 years, 40% have been in divorce and custody disputes. Of the divorce and custody cases that have been adjudicated, in three-fourths [75%] there was no legal finding of abuse. That is, charges were dropped, never filed, the person was acquitted in criminal court, or there was a finding of no abuse in family or juvenile court."
-H. Wakefield & R. Underwager, "Sexual Abuse Allegations in Divorce and Custody Disputes," Behavioral Science and The Law, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 1991, p. 451-468, DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370090408, retrieved June 6, 2024, [http://ipt-forensics.com/library/saadcd.htm]

So after the feminists pushed for female empowerment in government, many women started lying about their husbands being rapists and child abusers as soon as the wives drew up divorce papers. As I just said, they knew they could use government to take everything he had, including the children, force him to pay for everything, not have to be under his ruling authority, and then claim "I don't need no man," while cashing slave-labor checks from him until the point that he loses all hope and puts a gun in his mouth because he has no recourse.

Although polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable since they can show someone to be lying when they are not, which is why they are not used as evidence in court trials, the opposite applies in these cases because the report found that 79% of men (1983-1987) had successfully PASSED a polygraph test in denying sexual abuse charges, however, instead of noting this information, the decisions were being made by the notoriously unreliable opinions social workers, rather than the justice system. Yet, by the observations of the social workers alone, without any further evidence-gathering investigations, they still concluded that around 50% of cases did not support the woman's claim. Even with unreliable methods, as many as 80% (possibly more) of child rape allegations are false, this is certainly worth looking into and gathering data based on thorough investigations, but as far as I am aware, as of 2024, no similar studies have been conducted over the past 40 years, and that is mostly due to the barbaric howling of feminists intimidating cowardly men who lack the backbone to do what is right.

Bruce Gross, the director of the University of South California's Institute of Psychiatry, Law, and Behavioral Science, pointed out the slowly growing number of innocent men who have been serving years of a prison sentence:
"There is no way of knowing the number of defendants who have been convicted of rape on the basis of a false allegation. One study found 28 cases in which the defendant had been convicted and served an average of 7 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence (Connors et al., 1996). Of note, all 28 cases involved sexual assault with the trials taking place in the mid- to late- 1980s when DNA was not routinely tested. According to the Innocence Project, since 2000 there have been 156 cases of post-conviction exonerations based on DNA testing, an untold number of which involved sex crimes (Innocence Project, 2008). The average time the wrongfully convicted person served prior to release was 12 years. Regardless of the exact number, processing those who have been falsely accused of rape is a clear waste of legal, judicial, and penal resources."
-Bruce Gross, "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice," Annals of the American Psychotherapy, 2008, p. 48-49, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-546.pdf]

Please do not misunderstand Gross's meaning because he is NOT saying that it is a waste of resources to free innocent men, but rather, he is saying that women are wasting the taxypayers' resources, and therefore, since men are the primary taxpayers in society, they are wasting mens' resources to prosecute innocent men. Our executive and judicial branches of government are not free, which is why feminists need to be put in their place. Any woman who falsely accuses a man should not only have to suffer the consequences that he would have had to suffer if allegations were true, but she should have to pay the taxpayers back for all the money she cost the public for wasting everyone's time on her personal vendetta.

Without proper evidence, men are being put in jail for an average of 7 years per false rape allegation, and it is a heavily corrupted nation that allows this to continue. This is why, in 1769, William Blackstone, most well-known for his Commentaries on the Laws of England, said, "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer," thus concluding that the crime of convicting an innocent man outweights 10-to-1 the consequences of acquitting a guilty man.

Gross continues:
"Essentially, there are no formal negative consequences for the person who files a false report of rape. Not only did the false allegation serve a purpose for the accusers, they actually never have to fully admit to themselves, their family, or their friends that the report was a lie. Although there are grounds for bringing legal action against the accuser, it is virtually never done. Even should a charge be filed, in most jurisdictions filing a false report is only a misdemeanor. When rape cases go to trial, alleged victims are protected by "rape shield statutes." In brief, these statutes are designed to prevent defense attorneys from using the accuser's sexual history "against" her. At the same time, these rape shield laws may suppress evidence related to the woman's history that is relevant to the issue before the court. In particular, they have been used to exclude prior false accusations of rape filed by the alleged victim. Although courts have ruled inconsistently on this issue, there is legal foundation for admitting prior false accusation into evidence in criminal proceedings (Epstein, 2005). In a step toward ensuring justice, perhaps when there is proof of prior false reports, they should be allowed in. Before this can happen, guidelines would need to be established regarding the definition of a "false rape accusation" and the criteria for proof of prior acts. Similarly, consideration should be given to making the filing of a false report of rape a felony, rather than a misdemeanor."
-Bruce Gross, "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice," Annals of the American Psychotherapy, 2008, p. 49, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-546.pdf]

It may be surprising to some readers to learn that our country does not have a clear law definition of a "false rape allegation," which is heavily due to a lack of concern for the rights of men in this country, and it is extraordinarily hypocritical (albeit, expected) that feminist organizations, who claim to fight for "equality," have not lifted a finger to help in this regard. Although I believe my position of a false accuser having to suffer the same consequences as the man would have if he were convicted, I would agree with Gross that, at minimum, false accusations should be a felony because of the ergregious ramifications of the crime.

Sadly, because feminism is highly revered in the media and government, most researchers and reporters today will not go anywhere near this topic because they fear losing their job if they dare question the feminist narrative. This is also why many church buildings and ministries stay away from this topic, knowing that if they tell the truth about feminists, they will lose popularity and income, the two things that most pastors in this nation love more than the Lord Jesus Christ, so they will continue to appease women to keep their wallets fat.

There is one very important subject we need to cover before I end this chapter, and that is the subject of male rape; not men raping women, but men raping other men, and women raping men. This subject is almost never covered in legacy media. In fact, it was not until 2013 that the FBI definition of rape was updated to include men, as they stated in their FAQ to various jurisdictions:
"Q: In 2012, the Department of Justice announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's (UCR) Summary Reporting System (Summary). How does the new definition differ from the old one?
A: The old definition was 'The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.' Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: 'Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.'"
-Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Change in the UCR Definition of Rape," Dec 11, 2014, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [ucr.fbi.gov/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions]

In the news, movies, books, and music, the only thing we ever hear about is forced sexual violation of women, but we never hear about the violation of men. Anyone with average thinking capability should find it somewhat odd that, in a so-called "rape culture" and in a "patriarchal society" that is filled with so-called "male privilege," sexual assault against males is never mentioned. The FBI's former definition of rape was developed in 1927 while they were gathering statistics on rape data, and so for almost a century of rape statistics, men were excluded from those numbers.

The Alaska Victimization Survey parroted a CDC survey in which women were told that they have no responsibility for their actions when they are drunk:
"Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault. When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have had vaginal sex with you?"
-A. Rosay & D. Wood, "Alasak Victimization Survey: Detailed Responses to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Questions," Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151227132235/justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2010/1004.avs_2010/1004.06.avs.dhss2.pdf]

Earlier in this chapter, we covered the absurdity of women not being responsible for their actions when they choose to drink alcohol, but I want readers to focus on the fact that they specifically asked about VAGINAL sex ONLY from the perspective of the woman. The document goes on to ask specifically if they had been raped by a man's "penis," and refer only to vaginal sex, anal, or oral sex via the penis, and thus, the wording of this document completely excludes men from consideration in reporting rape, let alone rape statistics.

Our gynocentric government does not consider men to be victims of sexual assault by a woman. The problem is that men think that during the process of being assaulted by a woman, he had an erection, so he thinks, "Since I had an erection, I must have wanted it," however, involuntary biological responses to stimuli is not an argument for desire or consent, otherwise, one could argue that if a woman was stimulated with vaginal fluid, she desired or consented to sex.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine reported:
"The belief that it is impossible for males to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by women is contradicted. Previous research indicating that male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states, including anger and terror, are corroborated."
-P.M. Sarrel & W.H. Masters, "Sexual Molestation of Men by Women," U.S. National Library of Medicine, April, 1982, PMID: 7125884, DOI: 10.1007/BF01541979, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7125884/]

For example, you may not want to vomit, but if you touch the back of your throat, you can force involuntary vomiting, and this is because God designed our bodies to react in certain ways due to specific stimulation. Both males and females can be aroused and even orgasm during rape encounters (which is one of the reasons it is traumatic, because it links feelings of terror, anger, and fear with sexual gratification), and so the argument that males cannot be raped because they got an erection is as ludicrous as saying females cannot be raped because they secreted vaginal fluid.

The sexual violence survey given by the CDC in 2010 decided to include men for the first time, they interviewed 7,421 men, and the results showed that 1-in-71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, 52.4% of those reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger. The survey went further and found that 1-in-21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else.
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 1-2, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf])

There are countless rape centers and organiziations that offer help and counseling to women who have suffered sexual abuse (because of FEMALE privilege), but there are very few that offer help and counseling to men who have been raped. Many people forget about men and boys, and according to the CDC survey, "More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger."
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 2, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf])

In my book, Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism (which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com), I documented many cases of sexual molestation and rape commited against children by Catholic priests and nuns, and young boys are so commonly victims in the vile Catholic Church, it has become a meme. However, despite this, there is very little help in way of relief or counseling for young boys who were sexually violated, and this should not be surprising after reading chapter four, where the gynocentric media often minimizes trauma to boys.

Remember that, earlier, we read the definitions of "rape culture" by feminists, in which they said that it is "a cultural environment that creates a context where rape is okay or at least not that big of a deal." The nation is outraged whenever they hear of a girl or woman being raped, but if a boy or man is raped, often, there is indifference because males are expected to be tough and work those things out, which indicates that if there is any type of "rape culture" in America, it exists only against men, and as we explore the following points, please keep this definition of "rape culture" in mind.

The above CDC report noted that they surveyed domestic cases ONLY, and did NOT "capture populations living in institutions (e.g. prisons, nursing homes, millitary bases, college dormitories) or those who may be living in shelters, or homeless," and this is important because we cannot get an accurate comparison for male versus female rape statistics if we exclude many instances of rape. These statistics are NOT excluded for women, so why are they excluded for men?

It is not just because men are generally brushed aside. Based on my analysis, one of the primary reasons I suspect so many men are excluded from these numbers is because, if they were included, it would result in rape against men in the U.S. being much HIGHER than women, which would contradict the feminist victimization narrative.

Keeping in mind the feminst definition of "rape culture," these males victims become the punchline of jokes:
"Every comedian has a prison rape joke and prosecutions of sexual crimes against men are still rare. But gender norms are shaking loose in a way that allows men to identify themselves—if the survey is sensitive and specific enough—as vulnerable. A recent analysis of BJS data, for example, turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator. The final outrage... involves inmates, who aren't counted in the general statistics at all. In the last few years, the BJS did two studies in adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The surveys were excellent because they afforded lots of privacy and asked questions using very specific, informal, and graphic language. ('Did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a blow job?') Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse."
-Hanna Rosin, "When Men Are Raped: A New Study Reveals That Men Are Often the Victims of Sexual Assault, and Women Are Often the Perpetrators," Slate, Apr 29, 2014, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [http://slate.me/POCNPU]

Let me make sure that we all understand what was just said in this Bereau of Journal Statistics study. If we simply include this one category, the amount of male victims of rape goes up by almost a million, which raises it to shocking levels.

Feminist intimidation (through influence in media, to publicly condemn opposition and get people fired) has been the primary cause of the glossing over of these statistics, and why so many researchers refuse to investigate these numbers and do the surveys needed to find the truth. It is quite possible that, in the U.S., the number of male rapes could not only equal that of female rapes, but male rape numbers might be higher than that of female rapes, and this is primarily because most of the institutions the CDC mentioned, like military bases and prisons, and other factors like the homeless, actually are made up of mostly men, who have generally been ignored when it comes to rape and abuse statistics. (i.e. Men make up the grand majority of active duty military [86%], prisons [87%], and homeless [77%] in the U.S.)
(For military statistics, see Statistic Brain, "Women in the Military Statistics," retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150107092235/statisticbrain.com/women-in-the-military-statistics]; For prison statistics, see Leonard A. Sipes, "Statistics on Women Offenders," corrections.com, Feb 6, 2012, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [http://corrections.com/news/article/30166-statistics-on-women-offenders]; For homeless statistics, see National Health Care for the Homeless Council, "Single Males: The Homeless Majority," Vol. 5, No. 3, June, 2001, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151223122509/nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001HealingHands.pdf])

It is true that people commonly make jokes about men getting raped in prison, so why is it that no one makes jokes about women getting raped? This is because women getting raped is a tragedy, and men getting raped is "normal," indicating that we have "a cultural environment that creates a context where rape is okay or at least not that big of a deal," but only when men are the victims.

The estimated number of domestic rape/sexual assault cases in the U.S. as of 2008 was 203,830, and we have to consider that this number should be much lower if we would rightfully remove the "unfounded" allegations from the statistics. The estimated number of rape/sexual assault cases among only U.S. prison inmates was 209,400, higher than the number of TOTAL sexual assault cases in standard statistics that exclude most men. Hopefully, readers can now see why I suspect that rape against men in America is much higher than rape against women, but until researchers are free from threat of losing their jobs over the supposed "crime" of offending the femi-nazis, we will not know for sure.
(For domestic statistics, see Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables," U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2011, NCJ 231173, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf]; For prison inmate statistics, see David Kaiser & Lovisa Stannow, "The Shame of Our Prisons: New Evidence," The New York Review of Books, Oct 24, 2013, retrieved June 7, 2024, [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/10/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence/])

Early in this chapter, I mentioned that we would come back to the Marshall University list of "Examples of Rape Culture," and here is part of the list:
"‣ Blaming the victim ('She asked for it!')
‣ Trivializing sexual assault ('Boys will be boys!')
‣ Sexually explicit jokes
‣ Tolerance of sexual harassment
‣ Inflating false rape report statistics
‣ Publicly scrutinizing a victim's dress, mental state, motives, and history"
-Women's Center, "What is the 'Rape Culture'?" Marshall University, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20180726233031/https://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/]

After reading this chapter, I hope that readers will understand the deceptions in this list:

When men are raped, feminists blame the victim. When men are sexually assaulted, it is trivialized in society. Jokes are made about the rape of men openly in public. Women sexually harassing men is tolerated. Rape statistics for women are inflated. When men are raped, their motives, mental state, and history is scrutinized.

Though the Bible very clearly condemns sodomy and homosexuality as sin, most people forget lesbians in these figures because they think it is not possible for women to rape. On the contrary, lesbians rape other lesbians quite frequently, as American journalist Philip Cook and criminal justice professor Tammy Hodo point out:
"Researcher Claire Renzetti has been a pioneer in examining abuse of all types in lesbian relationships. Forty-eight percent of the respondents in a survey she helped conduct said they had experienced sexual abuse in their relationships and had experienced forced sex, with 16 percent saying it was forced upon them frequently. Four percent of the respondents had suffered a gun or knife being inserted in their vagina. Does this mean that lesbians are more likely to rape other lesbians than it is for a woman to rape a man? Possibly."
-Philip W. Cook & Tammy L. Hodo, When Women Sexually Abuse Men: The Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment, and Sexual Assault, ABC-CLIO, 2013, p. 14, ISBN: 9780313397301

We ought to take a moment to consider that the feminist movement attracts and harbors a large number of lesbians. With the number of woman-on-woman rapes in these surveys, we have to wonder how much rape is going on within the feminist movement itself, without anyone questioning it because such truths are inconvenient for the feminist narrative.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature [i.e. lesbians]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly [sodomites/homosexuals], and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [i.e. sinful mind], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:26-32

These verses are directed at both men and women, not just one or the other, and people would do well to remember that the Lord God has condemned all of us in His Word. However, feminists lead people to believe that evil only comes from men, like when feminist Marilyn French wrote in her 1977 novel The Women's Room:
"Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."
-Marilyn French, The Women's Room, (Chpt 5, 1977), Simon and Schuster, 2011, ISBN: 9781451629170

French's book sold 20 million copies and was translated into 20 languages, likely because it had help from wealthy, corrupt sources. However, in the follow interview, Warren Farrell (aforementioned in the introduction to this book) described the time he was hired to conduct a survey for Glamour Magazines back in the late 1970s, and how when they discovered the truth about what men really thought, they refused to publish it:

FARRELL: "I've never spoken about this before, but when I did an article once for Glamour Magazine, they asked me to find out, to report on what guys most wanted from women when they were sexual with them, and they were expecting all these sort of tricky sexual positions and orgasms or other things along those lines that we can all image. I interviewed guy after guy, and these were guys that were not sort of feminist males. These were guys from lots of different stripes in life. They had lots of different desires, but they had only one thing in common, and one thing that was most frequently mentioned. Both what they had in common, and what was most frequently mentioned, was that they wanted the woman to be happy, excited, and gratified. So I submitted this and explained the quotes and things like that, and Glamour said, 'We can't publish this.'" INTERVIEWER: "Are you kidding me?" FARRELL: "I am not kidding you. They would not publish it; that was not the answer they wanted." INTERVIEWER: "When was this?" FARRELL: "This was back in--about the 70s probably, late 70s." INTERVIEWER: "Wow. When I'm hearing you tell this, I'm thinking, 'Geez, that should be a really important article.'" FARRELL: "They [women] would love that. You would think that they would love that, and this is not--Glamour Magazine is not a feminist publication." INTERVIEWER: "How do you explain their rejections of this article?" FARRELL: "I feel that their rejection was basically, 'This is not what our managing editors feel will sell.' Women don't really want to hear that this is a very peaceful type of thing... Women want to hear more like, men want a blowjob, men want to have it be over quickly." INTERVIEWER: "Is it fair to say that what you found doesn't fit the narrative [a written or spoken account of events] that's being promoted through the media the last 30 or 40 years?" FARRELL: "Yeah, what I found does not fit the narrative, and doesn't fit the feminist narrative at all..." INTERVIEWER: "I think those results still apply today." FARRELL: "I've started 300 men's groups, I've started some 250 women's groups, all around the country. In men's group after men's group after men's group... and this is confidential groups where people open up and share their heart and know that it will not get outside of the group, and that's the big vow, and I've never heard a man intimate that he really wants to rape a woman... never have I had a guy suggest that he wanted to do something in sex that made the woman unhappy... or that the woman didn't want."

Feminists do not want to hear that the "female oppression" that they have been educated to believe does not actually exist because that indicates that they are not victims, and if they are not victims, they cannot manipulate men to gain power. Victim status implies a right to compensation, attention, and sympathy, and women really like that because they like to receive something for nothing, which gives us a segue to the topic of the next chapter...





 

In a public address, corrupt President Barack Obama said:
"Over the course of her career, a working woman with a college degree will earn on average hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a man who does the same work. Now, that's wrong... I want every child to grow up knowing that a woman's hard work is valued and rewarded just as much as any man's."
-Barack Obama, "Obama: 'It's Time' to Close Gender Wage Gap," Associated Press, June 10, 2013, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA]

Everyday Feminism Magazine tells women what most Americans have heard many times before, that women only make about 77 cents to every dollar a man earns, and this "77%" figure is commonly known as "the wage gap." The so-called "wage gap" is an impressive piece of propaganda, an exposé worthy of its own book, and we are going to unravel this lie to show the problem with feminists' fallacious arguments and wildly false statistics.
(See Carmen Rios, "Here's What That '78 Cents to a Man's Dollar' Wage Gap Statistic Really Means," Everyday Feminism, July 12, 2015, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-78-cents-wage-gap-means/])

The author of the above source made reference to the National Committee on Pay Equity, which published a chart of average salary earnings by men and women that has been reported by the Census Bureau from 1960 to 2019. It shows a progression of women in the 1960s making 59 cents on the dollar, up to 77 cents on the dollar on average by the 2010s. The problem is that this chart considers no other variables other than direct average salary earnings, but this is unsurprising because there is a consistent pattern of feminists ignoring thorough research and statistical analysis. (See National Committee on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap Over Time: In Real Dollars, Women See a Continuing Gap," retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://pay-equity.org/info-time.html])

The original source for the 77% wage gap number came from the U.S. Current Population Survey Labor Force Statistics from 2009, and again, it only showed average median income for men and women without any context. This was parroted by feminist organizations, like the Institute for Women's Policy Research, which emphasized the "77%" number by showing the 2009 men's average of $50,440 with women's average of $38,828, and by doing nothing more but glancing at these numbers, feminists immediately cried "oppression!"
(See Institute for Women's Policy Research, "The Gender Wage Gap: 2012," #C350, September, 2013, p. 3, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Gender-Wage-Gap-FS-Sep-2013_FINAL2-1.pdf])

The only gap in these statistics is the contextual gap, which requires something called "research," a concept seemingly foreign to many feminists. There was NO study nor analysis to go along with the statistics that would compare other possible variables, like hours worked, the type of work being done, vacation days, sick days, maternity leave, and numerous other factors that could contribute to the variation between the totals; feminists simply screamed "misogyny!"

To understand the feminist fallacy, let's compare earnings by age according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics published in April of 2016, in which they reported that women between the ages of 16-24 averaged weekly earnings of $502, whereas women 45-54 had weekly earnings of $1075, but if feminists were to draw conclusions based SOLELY on these median averages, as they have with the so-called "wage gap," then they would have to conclude "ageism" bias against teenage and college workers, and then fight for young women's right to earn as much as a 54-year-old. That is beyond absurd because we all know the average earnings for an older person is because they have more work experience, more education, more dedication to their job, and are generally more responsible, and therefore, they are worth paying more for higher quality work performance, but most feminists abandon this logical approach because it does not help their victimization narrative.
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers Second Quarter 2016," U.S. Department of Labor, April 19, 2016, USDL-16-0794, p. 1, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_04192016.pdf])

Readers may be interested to learn that the so-called "wage gap" almost disappears when we compare marital status (i.e. whether or not the man or woman has a spouse):
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings by sex, marital status, and presence and age of own children under 18 in 2012," United States Department of Labor, Dec 3, 2013, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20131203.htm])

Over a century ago, the same situation existed, as anti-suffragette Sara C. White (who I quoted in an earlier chapter) pointed out:
"No one can deny, of course, that the wages of women in industry average considerably lower than those of men. But the reasons for this are found entirely outside of politics. The average girl is a transient [temporary employee] in industry, going into it as a temporary expedient to tide her over until she attains her natural desire, which is to marry, settle down, and raise a family. She is, therefore, not so good an investment for her employer as the boy who works beside her, who has gone into the business with the idea of making it his life work, and who has a stronger incentive to make himself more valuable.
It must be remembered that employers of labor do not pay for men and women, but for results. Samuel Gompers, an ardent suffragist, says women get less because they ask for less. That is true in part. Women do ask for less. One reason for this is that they look upon the job as something temporary. Another reason is, very frequently, that they are not entirely dependent on their own earnings, but are partly supported in their parents' home. But in the majority of cases, the industrial woman gets less than the industrial man because she is worth less, being not only less experienced, but physically unable to compete with him on the basis of absolute equality."
-Sara C. White, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 36, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n39/mode/2up]

In tandum with what Mrs. White said, the 2010 BLS report also found that more women worked when they were never married, divorced, separated, or widowed, than they did if they were married with children. Women married with children often take easier work-from-home or part-time service positions that allow them flexibility, which also means less money than a high-stress, full-time job. The bottom line is that women make different life choices when they get married and have children, which is one of the main reasons why men earn more.
(See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Women in the Labor Force: A Databook," U.S. Department of Labor, December, 2011, p. 1, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf])

When a man gets married, he quickly discovers that women do not like living in a cardboard box, and they want things like a food, toiletries, cars, kitchen appliances, furniture, and other comforts for the home and children. It is the nature of men to have a desire of duty to give his family things they need and want, which takes a lot of sacrifice in a high-stress, demanding job, so he takes on that burden to make more money and give his woman the privilege to stay at home or take on a low-stress job.

If feminists would be willing to do a little research, it would irritate them to learn that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, statistics showed that never-married women earned MORE than never-married men. Warren Farrell, who also used to be on the board of directors for the National Organization of Women (before he converted away from feminism), noted:
"U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001, Panel, wave 2. The exact median earnings for the women are $46,896; for the men, $39,996. Latest available data as of 2004. I began investigating this in 1990. The gap was about the same then—women earned 116% of what their male counterparts earned..."
-Warren Farrell, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap--and what Women Can Do About It, AMACOM, 2005, p. 238, ISBN: 9780814428566

There are variety of reasons why single, never-married women often have higher earnings, but I will cover more on that later. For now, let's look at total hours worked and make a comparison.

Men generally work more full-time and over-time jobs than women, and women generally work more part-time jobs than men. (There are always exceptions to the rule, but they are exceptions, not the rule.) According to an Indiana University Department of Sociology study published in 2014, at least 10% of the supposed 23% "wage gap" is because men work over-time (i.e. 50+ hours/week) two and half times more often than women:
"Despite rapid changes in women's educational attainment and continuous labor force experience, convergence in the gender gap in wages slowed in the 1990s and stalled in the 2000s. Using CPS data from 1979 to 2009, we show that convergence in the gender gap in hourly pay over these three decades was attenuated by the increasing prevalence of 'overwork' (defined as working 50 or more hours per week) and the rising hourly wage returns to overwork. Because a greater proportion of men engage in overwork, these changes raised men's wages relative to women's and exacerbated the gender wage gap by an estimated 10 percent of the total wage gap."
-Y. Cha & K.A. Weeden, "Overwork and the Slow Convergence in the Gender Gap in Wages," Indiana University, Feb 28, 2014, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161013044348/mypage.iu.edu/~cha5/Youngjoo_Cha_files/Cha_weeden.pdf]

If a husband and wife both work for the same company, both make $10 per hour, and both work 40 hours per week, they would each make total of $400 in weekly earnings. (We will ignore predatory taxation for the sake of this example.) The company puts out a memo saying they need extra help because a key employee quit, and they offer ten hours of overtime to the couple. The woman elects to work at home to take extra time to finish chores that need to be done at the house, and the man stays on to work the extra ten hours, so at the end of the week, his weekly earnings come out $500 and hers comes out to $400, a 20% difference, and that is not including bonus pay for overtime.

As we can now begin to see, there is no "wage gap" where a woman makes less than a man. Women make the same amount of money, but men work harder. These factors do not get taken into consideration in these statistics because it is rare that these studies and surveys are being conducted to determine the reasons for the variables, and even if they get conducted, reporting on them in a gynocentric society could lead to reporters losing their jobs.

In 2105, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that women generally work more part-time jobs than men, while men work more full-time jobs than women: (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey," United States Department of Labor, 2015, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161116065826/bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm])

Some feminists will claim that women do not have access to the same full-time work that men do, but that could only be argued by someone who is willfully ignorant or legally insane. Again, it has nothing to do with accessability, and everything to do with women just not wanting to do the work that men do:
"Part-time employment opportunities have been depicted as a beneficial option for women — offering them entry level access to the labor market while allowing them the flexibility to fulfill their roles in the home as wives and mothers. It is assumed that workers in this type of employment experience choice and autonomy [freedom and independence]: one personnel study concludes that, '...making a choice about part-time employment may contribute to the quality and dignity of working life, offering workers more control over their working time and the ability to accommodate personal and family needs as well as work needs. They permit workers to be treated as responsible adults, and they may increase job satisfaction.'"
-Vicki Smith, "The Circular Trap: Women and Part-Time Work," Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Mar 3, 2016, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/03/03/from-the-archives-the-circular-trap-women-and-part-time-work/]; See also Stanley D. Nollen & Virginia H. Martin, "Alternative Work Schedules," American Management Association, 1978, ISBN: 9780814431320

In case you may not have fully understood what was said, it is ASSUMED that a full-time career gives women freedom and choice, but the fact is that, if women choose to work, part-time work is what most women feel gives them freedom and choice because they are not forced to be a corporate wage-slave like men. This is why women more often seek part-time employment, because a full-time career does not fulfill their basic God-given desires; not that they do not have a desire to work, but the work that is most fulfilling for women is work within the home and family.

In fact, women have been incentivized for working part-time instead of full-time because women generally make MORE in part-time jobs than men do:
"Women consistently earn more than men in part-time jobs, which women are also more likely to have. Female part-time workers earned $10 more in median weekly salaries than their male counterparts did in 2012, according to a new study from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS defines part-time work as less than 35 hours per week spent on a sole or principal job."
-Alison Griswold, "This Is The One Area Where Women Earn More Than Men," Business Insider, Nov 7, 2013, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.businessinsider.com/women-consistently-earn-more-than-men-in-part-time-jobs-2013-11]

This means there is a "wage gap" that is biased against men in part-time jobs, so where is the feminist outcry for "equality" in the media? Why are women not demanding that men get paid as much as women? God forbid that I, a lowly man, should call out the hypocrisy of feminism.

There is huge difference between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome, or in other words, we can make the playing field fair for everyone, but the results of the game will never be the same every time. For example, I once heard a feminist argue that women make up 50% of the population, while they have only 25% of seats in Congress, but the problem is not that they system is rigged against women; rather, the feminist did not consider that most women do NOT want to go into politics, and therefore, there are less female politicians because women make different life choices than men.

Most feminists are completely blinded to the fact that most women disapprove of the feminist narrative, not necessarily verbally, but rather, it is because women are not choosing to go into particular fields of work that men frequently choose. Women prove their disagreement of feminist ideology by their actions. Therefore, to combat this resistance, feminists have poisoned our society with propaganda to manipulate women into thinking that they should desire to have a wage-slave career like men do, so they can fight the "patriarchy."

Feminists lie to women and tell them they can have it all—that they can be a girl boss CEO and a superhero mom at the same time—but nothing could be further from the truth. Let me emphasize this for female readers:

You cannot be a good employee and good mother because you cannot be in two places at the same time.

Ladies, you have to choose one. You cannot have both. Either you can be a great mom, or you can be a great employee, because spending time at one place sacrifices the time spent in the other place. It is sad that I have to make this statement, but because so many women have been brainwashed by feminist propaganda, I am forced to remind women that you cannot be a good mother to your children if you are not present with them. (And that includes those women who choose to send their children off to public school for 8 hours a day.)

Men dominate in a lot of the high-paying careers because men more often choose those high-paying careers. However, it needs to be noted that higher-paying careers come at a price, and most women are not willing to pay that price.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics employments are often called STEM jobs, and it is claimed that these jobs are biased in favor of men. Men choose to go into STEM careers much more often than women, and studies have shown us that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fake feminist narrative of the patriarchy inhibiting females:
"The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers."
-Wendy M. Williams & Stephen J. Ceci, "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Vol. 112, No. 17, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1418878112]

Once we look at the actual numbers, we find that the feminist narrative is fipped on its head because both men and women who looked over the test applications choose women over men more than 65% of the time, meaning that women have a FAR greater advantage getting hired into STEM than men! It is also interesting that mothers who took leave for their children (i.e. meaning they actually love and care for their families and want to be a good mothers) were selected more often by male employers, but females more often selected women who left their husbands, and also denied a job to those men who were dedicated husbands and fathers, showing an extreme bias and hatred against men, which is what we call a "matriarchy," not a patriarchy.

Men choosing high-stress, high-pay work is another reason for the supposed "wage gap." If feminists want to cry about higher-paying jobs being dominated by men, then I say to them: choose a different career path into high-paying STEM job, and then you will have no need to complain because, as we can see, they are hiring women 2-to-1 over men. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

The following are statistics published by the Council of Graduate Schools, and they showed that women are actually out-performing men in accredited college degrees:
"Women earned about two-thirds of the graduate certificates, 60% of the master's degrees, and 52% of the doctorates awarded in 2011-12. Academic year 2011-12 marked the fourth consecutive year in which women earned the majority of the degrees awarded at the doctoral level."
-L.M. Gonzales & J.R. Allum, "Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2002 to 2012," Council of Graduate Schools, September, 2013, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161117043711/cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GEDReport_2012.pdf]

Despite the fact that women are getting more degrees than men, men are still earning more because they choose higher-stress, higher-paying jobs than women. It has nothing at all to do with women getting paid less than a man. Never in my life have I had a job in which my female co-workers have made less than me in the same position; however, I have had situations in which my female co-workers made more than me in the same position, and when I asked for a raise, I was denied, so it left me wondering (if I had so-called "male privilege") why women were getting all the special opportunities and benefits.

Research has shown that, on average, STEM jobs pay about 24% more than non-STEM jobs:
"The DOE report looked at four years of data on college graduates and found that STEM majors — science, technology, engineering, and math — on average earn $65,000, while non-STEM majors earned about $15,500 less. STEM majors were also more likely to be employed and hold only one full-time job, rather than a part-time job or multiple jobs."
-Peter Jacobs, "Science And Math Majors Earn The Most Money After Graduation," Business Insider, July 9, 2014, retrieved Oct 4, 2016, [businessinsider.com/stem-majors-earn-a-lot-more-money-after-graduation-2014-7]

It is fascinating to discover that if women put in the same amount of work that men do in the STEM fields, the 23% wage gap would disappear, and in fact, they would end up making more than men because they have special privileges when getting hired. However, STEM fields are almost exculsively full-time, and women generally do not want to work full-time, so instead, they whine about a "wage gap."

Please take note in the above chart that the highest-paying degrees (i.e. as of 2016, math, engineering, computer science, physics, and business) are dominated by men. As I stated earlier, this is not because there is a bias in colleges that prevent women from getting a degree in these fields, but rather, women do not like that kind of work, and it is not just the long hours. Women more often prefer jobs that involve relating to social interaction, which usually pay less than technical work, and they also prefer more comfortable settings with lower mental/physical stress conditions that would be required to perform day-to-day tasks, which is why jobs like construction workers and coal miners are dominated by men.

Garbage collecting is a great example to help dispel feminist propaganda because the average salary of a garbage collector in 2014 was $33,660, and depending on the city, some garbage collectors can start close to $60,000 annually. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated a rise of 7 percent of available jobs for this industry from 2016 (when I released the first edition of this book) to 2024 (release of my second edition), which means there is an amazing opportunity right now for women to become garbage collectors and increase their salaries.
(See U.S. News & World Report, "Garbage Collector: Overview," retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160305143840/money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/garbage-collector])

Upon analysis, there seems to be some strange mysterious force keeping women from applying to be garbage collectors, and that left me curious about what repels feminists from taking on such a lucrative career? As of 2008, New York City had 7,000 garbage collectors, and only 200 (less than 3%) of them were women, showing us a massive inequality, and as of 2009, Manhattan had 426 sewage workers, but only 5 (1%) of them were women, which means that women are highly unrepresented in the garbage collecting and sewage industries, which should be a big concern for feminists.
(See Kathleen Horan, "City Honors Female Garbage Collectors," WYNC, Mar 29, 2008, retrieved June 11, 2024 [https://www.wnyc.org/story/77923-city-honors-female-garbage-collectors/]; See also Alison Gendar, "Agency 'a man's world': Women sewer workers sue DEP over unfair treatment," Daily News, Nov 6, 2009, retrieved June 11, 2024, [https://www.nydailynews.com/2009/11/06/agency-a-mans-world-women-sewer-workers-sue-dep-over-unfair-treatment/])

Based on everything we have learned about feminism, we know that all women are queens and girl-bosses, so if you were wondering if women hating to be dirty and smelly all the time was keeping them out a high-paying career in sewage, then you are just a misogynist pig that hates girl power. All kidding aside, no one, including men, want to be dirty and smelly all the time, and because of that, society has to pay people a higher wage to take up unpleasant jobs that no one else wants to do, and because men tend to have a higher tolerance to discomfort than women, therefore, men will get paid more for taking on unpleasant work, which also helps explain the "wage gap."

Feminists always seem to want "equality" when it comes to the comfortable and prestigious jobs, but they go oddly quiet when it comes to equality in smelly, dirty, disgusting, and physically-taxing jobs. I have no problem with women not wanting to do tough and dirty work, but I do have a problem with entitled, whiny brats (i.e. feminists) crying about imagined woes, complaining about the patriarchy, whining about capitalism, while sipping on a Starbucks vinti. At the beginning of this book, I quoted feminists who want to rid the world of nearly all men, but they quickly forget how many comforts they enjoy at the hands of men behind the scenes who clean up their trash and sewage, pave their smooth roads, and drill out the oil for their vehicles, all of which operate on machinery also invented and designed by men who primarily take jobs in engineering because women do not want to do the work.

The "wage gap" is also explained by jobs that have a high risk of injury and death, which women tend to avoid, even though they offer higher salaries. In 2014, BLS reported a total of 4,679 work-related deaths, and of those, 4,320 (92%) were male, and 359 (8%) were female. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Fatal occupational injuries by selected worker characteristics and selected event or exposure, 2014," United States Department of Labor, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160927073616/bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm])

Most women love to have electricity in their homes, but do not want to take on the dangerous job of coal mining. Many women love to eat seafood, but do not want to take on the dangerous job of boating as a fisherman. Many women who love to talk on mobile phones, but do not want to take on the dangerous job of climbing tall towers and doing repairs. Women love to have clean windows in their comfortable high-rise offices, but do not want to get in the lift outside of a high-rise building to wash them.

While I was growing up, my dad ran his own local construction business by himself (with no employees), and sometimes brought me with him to do some jobs which required a lot of heavy lifting, dangerous heights, and even doing "icky" jobs like getting my hands in fecal matter to do repairs on a septic system, but he NEVER brought my sisters out to do that work, and my sisters, to this day, have little appreciation for what goes into that kind of work. Based just on my own observation, I have found that many Americans quickly forget, and remain blissfully ignorant of, the men who work tough jobs so they can have electricity, plumbing, and other convenient essentials, but most especially women, because most American women have no clue what it takes to provide fuel and clean water because they have never had to suffer without it thanks to the unappreciated men behind the scenes doing daily maintenance.

The following chart shows women in professional occupation for 2014, and you can see that women do not often take careers that put their lives or well-being at risk. Although there are plenty of safe jobs that men take, like the arts for example, but included in the arts are things like architecture that involve more math-related skills, which women typically choose not to study in college. (See Department for Professional Employees [AFL-CIO], "Women in the Professional Workforce," February 2015, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161014043618/http://dpeaflcio.org/professionals/professionals-in-the-workplace/women-in-the-professional-and-technical-labor-force/])

Jobs on the left side of the chart can also be considered lower risk and lower stress depending on the job. Some may consider nursing work higher stress and higher technical knowledge that pays well, and they are for the most part, but not only is nursing extremely low risk in terms of fatal accidents, the majority of healthcare workers are NOT nurses working in hospitals as some people might imagine; most are things like CNAs (Certified Nurse Assistants) to help with menial tasks like cleaning or moving patients in nursing homes (e.g. one nurse in a ward will oversee 10-20 CNAs), or they do other administrative and clerical tasks, which are low stress office jobs.

Feminists often talk about the "glass ceiling," which is their metaphor for women seeing the top but never being able to reach it, however, Jim Goad (author, radio host, and country singer) has a realistic metaphor he calls the "glass coffin," in which women can see the death of men all around them, but safely walk across their coffins to get where they want to be:
"The sad, inequitable truth is that when it comes to jobs that actually kill you—noble working-class professions such as logging, fishing, roofing, mining, truck driving, and toiling away on electrical power lines—men unfairly comprise more than 90% of the workers in each profession. Conversely, women dominate some of the safest jobs—things such as administrative support, education, and library work—by a factor of around three to one. It is shameful and horrifying and totally problematic and completely unacceptable that gender activists have failed to address this gaping inequality. It's almost as if the patriarchy intentionally denies women the natural privilege of dying while working... Sure, we often hear about the impermeable 'glass ceiling' that prevents women from becoming CEOs and billionaires and Supreme Court justices and running for president, but our male-dominated society turns a deaf ear to women's righteous quest for equality when it comes to sharing the right to suffocate under a ten-ton tsunami of human waste while working in a sewer because that's supposedly a 'man's' job... Equality is for everyone, and that includes the right to get squashed like a bug by heavy machinery. Why aren't women afforded the right to be struck dead by falling objects? Didn't Susan B. Anthony struggle nobly to make it possible for the sisterhood to drown overboard on Alaskan crabbing expeditions? Women have the same right that men do to be crushed to death in a coal-mining explosion. They deserve the freedom and dignity to be pulverized into tomato paste when their semi truck jackknifes around a mountain curve."
-Jim Goad, "Smashing Through the Glass Coffin," Taki's Magazine, Jan 11, 2016, retrieved Oct 25, 2016, [takimag.com/article/smashing_through_the_glass_coffin_jim_goad/print#axzz4O7ZQJVcs]

In summary, the higher the risk, the higher the demand, the higher the reward, which is why high-rise construction workers will often earn a better salary than a secretary. Unless a woman has to balance herself on a tight rope 300 feet in the air to get to the office, her job is considered safe and low risk, and though it is important organiazational work in the context of an office setting, it is not valued as much financially because more people would be willing to work in comfort as a secretary than to take the risk, physical strain, and stress of working in construction.

However, what feminists are attempting to do with the "wage gap" argument is pass legislation that will (via socialist regulations) force employers to pay secretaries the same as high-rise construction workers. A long time ago, feminists used to walk around with their picket signs that read "EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK," but now they walk around with signs that simply say "EQUAL PAY," which should demonstrate the deception behind the feminist movement because it means that feminists want a socialist/communist system where they do not have to take as much risk or do as much grueling labor, but they will get paid the same as someone who does.


James Madison, the 4th President of the United States, had a large role in drafting the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he stated very clearly in The Federalist Papers that when the mob (i.e. yowling feminism) demands equality in "their possession, their opinions, and their passions," then the entire structure of our nation will be destroyed. I have a shorter teaching I wrote at creationliberty.com, called "Should Christians Vote?" which discuss this issue in greater detail, and I would encourage readers to visit that page if you want an in-depth study.

I want to repeat my definition of feminism:

Feminism is the perpetual whining of privileged women who run from the consequences of their bad choices.

So to answer the claims of the perpetually whining feminists, the reason women generally make less is because they make different life choices, and the life choices women make will determine their career choices. For example, a man can take on a garbage collector job and earn a salary of $40,000 a year, and a woman can also take on a garbage collector job, but the employer does NOT say, "Oh, I see you're a female, so we're going to pay you $30,000 a year," because in America, that almost never happens.

I am not saying it has never happened because there have been instances in the 20th century where things like that did happen, but it was not common; feminists just brought the minority of cases into mainstream media, and so now everyone thinks it was common. In the majority of instances in which women would get paid less, it is because women did less work on the job.

The ability to earn more is driven by a number of factors, some of which we have already covered, but to give an example, I used to work a job in which we would go to someone's house, pack up all their stuff (i.e. dishes, clothes, furniture, etc), and move it to a new location. The guy I worked for did not pay me as much as he paid other employees because I did not have as much muscle as they did yet, so I could not do as much physically taxing work as they could do, which made perfect sense.

What I did not do is go out into the streets with picket signs and protest that I did not make as much as other employees, nor did I contact the government and whine about it, nor did I file lawsuits for discrimination. I did not do as much work as others did, and therefore, I got paid fair compensation for the amount of work I did, but feminists are morally depraved, and so instead of increasing their skills to provide high-quality work, they whine from a position of privilege, which will never end until men put their foot down and say "No more."

Concerning various industries that take on employees, most women will not (and in some cases cannot) do the same type of work men do, and most women choose NOT to do as much work as a man does. (Men do not get these kind of choices; they are only provided to privileged females.) This can also be seen in women who own their own businesses:
"While female business owners' salaries have risen in the past year to $63,000, the average male business owner earns $71,400 annually... The lower salary for the average woman entrepreneur is likely related to her company's overall revenue, rather than a decision to keep profits in the company or pay employees first."
-Colleen DeBaise, "How Much Do Women Business Owners Make?" The Story Exchange, Oct 24, 2013, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://thestoryexchange.org/women-business-owners/]

Other studies have found larger gaps between male and female business owners:
"Payscale's report indicated that men who own small businesses earn a salary that ranges from $42,575 to $96,111. Women, on the other hand, only earn $31,380 to $71,140 every year."
-K.J. Henderson, "The Average Income of Small Business Owners," Chron, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161007093217/smallbusiness.chron.com/average-income-small-business-owners-5189.html]

The first study I quoted was based on an American Express survey, and these numbers come from overall revenue, not internal decision-making, and the reason that is important to note is that feminists attempt to argue that women pay their employees more because women are so benevolent (which is not true), and that women are better investors, so they save money back for investing in the company (which is not true) because they know the propaganda will make women look better, despite the fact that the numbers show otherwise. Feminists will also scream "misogyny!" to argue that people are biased against female business owners, but that has nothing to do with the "income gap" between male and female business owners. Most consumers do not know who owns and operates the business at which they shop, and so because owning her own business puts the woman in charge of her own destiny in relation to how much money she makes, it takes away all the excuses women commonly use in workplace settings to justify their pay without equal work:
"In the corporate world, women often find it difficult to balance work and life; entrepreneurship offers more flexibility, but isn't a complete solution, according to the AmEx study. Women entrepreneurs say they are less satisfied with the amount of leisure time in their lives (63% vs. 70% of men) and are more likely to say they find it stressful balancing their personal life and their business (63%, vs. 57% of men)."
-Colleen DeBaise, "How Much Do Women Business Owners Make?" The Story Exchange, Oct 24, 2013, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://thestoryexchange.org/women-business-owners/]

Women have a greater desire than men for developing personal relationships with friends and family, which means most women do not desire to make money as much as they desire to spend time in the home and with their loved ones, which should be a great argument for why the nuclear family works so well, but feminist ideology gets in the way. For example, if a woman wants to have children, it is impossible to be a good mother that engages with and educates her children, AND run a full-time business simultaneously, so it forces women to choose one, or if they try to do both, they become very stressed, which leaves them "less satisfied with the amount of leisure time in their lives."

Despite the facts, the corrupt White House helps feminists push propaganda by publishing photos like this: (See Valerie Jarrett, "Email from Valerie Jarrett on Equal Pay Day, " The White House, April 12, 2016, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/04/12/email-valerie-jarrett-equal-pay-day])

If you go online and look up similar propaganda images, and you will notice that, in most instances, they always show a woman on the phone, sitting at a comfortable desk, writing, typing, or doing some other comfortable office work. They almost never show these women doing incredibly risky, dirty, or strenuous tasks, and the reason is because the entire purpose of this propaganda is to get women to think the "wage gap" is because a female taking phone calls makes 23% less than a male taking phone calls, and they cannot effective convince women if they show other women doing "icky" high-risk, high-stress, high-demanding jobs females do not want to do.

Edith Melvin was a self-made career woman and an anti-suffragette (and we will cover more on her in the next chapter), and in her well-written essay against feminist suffrage at the turn of the 20th century, she said:
"Many women are now undertaking to engage in business, not as a life-work, but as an incidental [casual, accidental] experience. It is true, however, that of the many thousands of women so engaged, very, very few climb up the ladder of success to the top rounds. It is the rare exception rather than the rule for women to attain marked distinction, great wealth, or fame in the business world. This is not caused by any unfairness of the male sex, but by the nature, the physical and mental limitations, of the members of the female sex. The trivialities of the afternoon tea are too often present in the work of the wage-earning woman—too often she has too slight a regard of her duty to return full value for the pecuniary [monetary] consideration she receives. The career of too many wage earning women is now entirely haphazard [chaotic], the result of necessity rather than well-grounded choice. It is fair to assume that political matters would receive the same degree of smattering knowledge and thought as is too often received by the daily occupation into which many women drift."
-Edith Melvin, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 40, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n43/mode/2up]

When Edith spoke of the "trivialities of the afternoon tea," she was referring to the matters of little or no importance that are considered to be intriguing to females, which are obviously a hinderance to the work place. Females prefer a relaxed atmosphere, something comfortable, where they can chat about feminine things, which is not wrong because women are designed to be women, but when superimposed into the business world, those feminine traits, in combination with women's natural physical weakness, create problems that inhibit productivity.

Statistics in the U.S. have shown that 91% of construction workers are male, while statistics in the U.K. have shown that 99% of construction workers are male. The surveys indicate that out of the small percentage of women in construction, many of them are working in offices, and the photos I saw on these websites never showed women doing any hard or dirty labor; it only showed women working with blueprints or standing around holding traffic signs, having nice clean shirts on with their pristine hair. See for yourself the next time you are driving through a construction zone; look for how many women you see, and if you see any, look for what type of job they are performing—that will tell you everything you need to know about the illusionary "wage gap."

(For the U.S., see Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Women in Construction," United States Department of Labor, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170326094140/https://www.osha.gov/doc/topics/women/]; For the U.K., see Martin Williams, "Where are all the women? Why 99% of construction site workers are male," The Guardian, May 19, 2015, retrieved June 12, 2024, [https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/2015/may/19/where-are-all-the-women-why-99-of-construction-site-workers-are-male])

This online e-card was more feminist propaganda, so I made a counter version to show readers the difference between the propaganda and reality. Again, people do not enjoy strenuous labor or dying, which is why a phone operator is paid less than a construction worker, and also why more men take construction jobs and women take phone operator jobs.
The following list of 17 questions is based on what affects how much money people make in a job, and why men earn more. Please read this list carefully while considering everything we have learned so far, and also consider the men and women that you have personally known in your life for each question. (e.g. Think of your mother and father, your siblings, your spouse, etc.) The answer to each of these questions will determine if you make more or less money at your job; the more you answer "yes," the higher your salary, and the more you answer "no," the lower your salary:

Does your occupation involve engineering, mathematics, or computer knowledge and skills? (e.g. STEM jobs versus non-STEM jobs) Does your occupation require you to take physical (and emotional) risk? (e.g. construction worker versus secretary) Does your occupation require you to take financial (and emotional) risk? (e.g. investment banker, stock trader, etc) Does your occupation require you work the worst hours? (e.g. third shift, rush hours, etc) Does your occupation expose you to harsh weather conditions? (e.g. wind, rain, snow, etc) Does your occupation require working more than 40 hours per week? (e.g. 50, 60, or more hours) Does your occupation prevent you from clocking out at the end of the day? (e.g. A lawyer has to take their work home, but a sales associate can forget their job when they go home.) Does your occupation require you to have years of experience? (e.g. office network operator vs cashier) Does your occupation require continual updating and repair? (e.g. computer technician versus English teacher) Does your occupation involve work that is not personally fulfilling? (e.g. journalism vs garbage collecting) Does your occupation require you to travel more than five days per month? Does your occupation require you to work in a city you do not want to live in? Do you have more than ten years of uninterrupted employment at your current occupation? Do you take five or less vacation days during the work year? Do you call in sick two or less days during the work year? Do you commute more than twenty-five miles round trip to get to work? Do you get paid commission?

Again, the more "yes" answers you provide, the higher your salary will be, but if you ask these questions in the context of "what do women prefer," then the answer to each one is typically "No." Thus, it is no coincidence that men earn more than women because men make sacrifices, suffering to answer "yes" to these questions for the sake of the women and children he is supporting financially.

This raises another conundrum: If women do the same work men do, but they do it 20-25% cheaper than men, then what company would be stupid enough to hire men at all? A free market society would naturally punish companies for discrimination against women because those companies that did not discriminate would be making HUGE profits over the other companies.

If it is true women are being discriminated against, surely there are companies that have figured this out by now and only hire women to take advantage of their cheap labor. However, we do not find this in the U.S. because the entire "wage gap" argument is a hoax propogated by feminists and their simp army.

Feminists complain that men with all the high-paying jobs means that men have all the "power," but I would argue against that because the word 'power' in this context means "authority" or "control." Feminists believe that men have all the authority and control because they make more money, but let's consider a scenario between two people and let you decide who has the power.

Person #1 works for a corporation that tells that him when to get up and when that he can go to bed. The schedule that person receives also dictates when he can eat, when he can take a break, and how much work he must get done.

Person #2 stays at home, allowing her to decide when to get up and when to go to bed. The person dictates when she can eat, when she can take a break, and how much work she must get done.

So does Person #1 have all the power, authority, and control over his life, or does Person #2 have more power, authority, and control? If you did not answer "Person #2," then you are only lying to yourself because men more often sacrifice their freedoms and lives for the sake of the family, to give the wife more freedom, to give the children more opportunity, which is why he is deserving of honor and authority in the family.

Ladies, do you honestly think you are gaining some sort of power, control, and authority by becoming a corporate wage slave? Is it your inward desire to chase corporate profit for executives who could not care less about you? Or is it your desire to have a comfortable home with a loving family? The happiest familes are those who give honor to the father, to submit to his control of the home, while the wife, in loving, dutiful, and Biblical manner, humbles herself and reverences him willingly.



 

The title of this chapter will cause many people to lose their minds in rage because it is common for people to act like children and react with emotion before rationally considering the facts. The Bible instructs Christians to be children in malice, meaning that it is more natural for children to let go of grudges, but not to be children in understanding, because it is more natural for children to lack discipline and wisdom.

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

Before we get into the details of whether or not women should vote, the record of history needs to be corrected so that Americans understand that the original design of this nation was set up so that only property owners could vote. This meant that most women and most men could not vote because most people did not own property, and thus, voting was a privilege earned, not a right granted.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

By restricting voting to property owners, it allowed only those who had a vested interest in the nation to vote, and because property ownership is essential to privacy and freedom, those who were allowed to vote would almost always, unanimously vote to decrease government involvement, decrease taxation, and increase government restriction to protect privacy and secure liberty. However, when the vote is given to the masses at large, those who have little will almost always, unanimously vote to increase government involvement (to get more beneficial programs), increase taxation (so they can take from others things they did not earn), and decrease government restriction, which results in a loss of privacy and liberty, and that is why, today, the government unconstitutionally spies on everything we say and do, and why we are taxed more than any nation in history.

Twenty years prior to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter concerning the defense of estates from attacks by the Delawares and Shawnees (i.e. natives), who had defected to the French. Franklin aptly stated:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, 11 November 1755," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107]

Only those who have an established ownership of a piece of the United States will fight to protect the liberties of their country for their stake of land, and will not give up their liberty for temporary saftey. However, those who do not own the land have no interest in the security and freedom of it. Therefore, it makes sense that those who own land should vote because voting determines representatives, representatives determine laws, and laws are made for the maintenance of peace and protection of liberties—NOT for welfare programs.

This is why the Pramble of the United States Constitution specifies that the government's job is to PROMOTE the general welfare, which is to encourage it, NOT to PROVIDE for it:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, retrieved June 27, 2024, [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/]

I have been both a renter and a property owner in my lifetime, and many people do not understand that the transition will change your perspective far more than you might realize. It forces you to learn about things you have never had to learn before, and to appreciate things that you previously took for granted. I have also experienced having renting neighbors versus having property-owning neighbors, and while renters often destroy property, cause disruptions, create noise polution, abuse children and animals, and sometimes bring theft and violence to a neighborhood, having property-owners for neighbors more often brings peace, friendliness, cooperation, and a willingness to help the community as a whole, which also benefits those who do not own property.

Surprisingly, a good explanation of this can be found at countyoffice.org, a U.S. government website that helps citizens find local governing offices:
"In the early days of America, only property owners were allowed to vote. This was because property ownership was seen as a sign of responsibility and commitment to the community. Those who owned property were considered to be invested in the success of the community and were more likely to make informed decisions. Additionally, property owners were often the wealthiest members of society and were seen as having the most to lose if the community failed. This gave them a vested interest in making sure that the community thrived."
-County Office, "Why Were Only Property Owners Allowed To Vote?" July 24, 2023, retrieved Mar 12, 2024, [https://youtu.be/CN1cey-p7mI?si=EllER4MT6wQcFDiO&t=11]

Giving EVERYONE the right to vote destroys the natural charity of property owners to their communities, and would replace it with government institutions in which the poor would use government as a weapon to force legal theft. This is not a Robin Hood situation in which he was taking back from the rich government elite and returning it to the poor peasants who were the victims, but rather, this is a situation in which the poor are the theives, using government to steal from the rich, instead of working honestly to earn what they have.

Feminists in the suffrage movement yowled, whined, and bickered for decades, and by 1919, they were able to convince a group of simps to hold a Constitutional convention to add the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
-National Constitution Center, "Women's Right to Vote," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/drafting-table/item/amendment-xix]

Once women were given the right to vote, politics changed forever because politicians would begin to change their campaigns to appeal to women, to take from men and give females more privilege than they already had. Privileges must come from others who have resources, and thus, each privilege females are given strip men of more liberty and resources, slowing creating male slaves.

One of the major detriments brought about by women voting was the tax-funded public education system, which took children out of the homes and put them into a state-operated institution for five days of the week. Public schools are not funded by hopeful dreams, but rather, they are funded by the property owners through unconstitutional property taxes that were voted in by the poor masses who now had the majority vote, which turned property owners into renters who had to pay their "rent" to the state under threat of losing their property, thereby sacrificing their liberty on the altar of gynocentricm, and making it so that even if the poor worked their way out of poverty to get their own private property, they now have to pay rent to the state.

Today, myself and my wife, as well as my parents, have to pay property taxes to fund a public education system that we all hate, do not use, and have no say in how it is run or how the money is spent. This is an overt violation against the Constitution, which demands that taxes be equally apportioned, and the Supreme Court needs to rule against this abhorrant tax.

The state has become a gynocentric mafia that oppresses honest, hard-working home owners so other people can get something for nothing under socialist policies. This is just one of many examples which could be provided on why giving women the right to vote was a terrible idea.

Women's suffrage was fundamental to establish socialism in America.

Allowing everyone to vote, without any qualification, has also resulted in many unintelligent, willingly-blind people going to the ballot box to vote on which candidate they think has the best dance moves. In case you think I am just being fascetious, here are two Obama-voting women on the beach in 2008, responding to being asked what policies Obama had that they liked the most:
"WOMAN #1: Barack's kind of cute.
WOMAN #2: Barack parties! That's why we want Barack! Did you see him break it down on Ellen Degeneres? [i.e. talk show hosted by a queer] He was breaking it down!"
-Creation Liberty Evangelism, "The Ignorance of American Voters," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://youtu.be/Uoc2wtsdoQg?t=1305]

PJTV correspondant Michelle Fields went into the streets in 2016 to ask people who they were voting for, and found many people voting for Hillary Clinton. She then asked them what Clinton's greatest achievements were in her current role as Secretary of State, and most could not name a single thing she had done, good or bad; they were just voting for her because she was on the blue Democrat ticket.
-Creation Liberty Evangelism, "The Ignorance of American Voters," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://youtu.be/Uoc2wtsdoQg?t=1344]

There were a few that were able to point to one example of something Hillary did has SoS, which they praised her for, and that was for her handling of "Benghazi." However, what they failed to understand is that Benghazi was an incident in which Hillary Clinton (as Secretary of State in 2012) failed to provide adaquet security personnel and equipment to protect U.S. facilities, and these clueless voters were praising Hillary for causing the first ever U.S. ambassador to be murdered while on active duty.
-Creation Liberty Evangelism, "The Ignorance of American Voters," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://youtu.be/Uoc2wtsdoQg?t=1525]

Mark Dice decided to go so far to test the depths of ignorance in American voters in 2016 by asking them if they supported Hillary Clinton's effort to repeal the Bill of Rights. Of course, Clinton never said such a thing, but the Bill of Rights is the document that spells out liberty of individual citizens of the United States, and so to repeal that would be the most foolish thing anyone could possibly conceive of doing in political office, and yet, in their dumbfounded blindedness, completely brainwashed by mainstream fake news media, female voters he interviewed said they WOULD be in favor of repealing the Bill of Rights because they were "outdated."
-Creation Liberty Evangelism, "The Ignorance of American Voters," retrieved June 26, 2024, [https://youtu.be/Uoc2wtsdoQg?t=1551]

The people I just described are ignorant of the facts, and what the Bible calls "simple-minded," meaning that they have the abililty to educate themselves on the truth, but refuse to put in the effort. There is nothing morally wrong with being ignorant or even simple-minded, but when people without knowledge and understanding choose to take action while in a state of simple-minded ignorance, they become idiots, and I have yet to hear a single rational argument in favor of why we should allow idiots to vote.

idiot (n): an utterly foolish or senseless person
(See 'idiot', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In summary, voting has never been a "right," nor should it ever have been classified as a "right" because the selfish, idiotic masses will always vote to pressure government to steal from others for socialist programs that break down the American foundation of earning a living through no-excuse hard work. (As I quoted Judge Judy in chapter two, "You work hard, and you get the door prize. That's it.") Voting has always been a privilege earned through education, dedication, sacrifice, and labor, which is why property owners are much more responsible voters, and they more often understand the policies of the people they vote for, so therefore, in this author's opinion, it is imperative that, if we are going to be a free nation, we MUST repeal the 19th Amendment.

The feminists will whine and cry as usual, and their simp army will flail their arms in a frenzy. However, if American readers are tired of the plague of idiotic voters, then it is time to put our foot down and say "Enough!"

A century ago, most women understood these basic concepts, and fought against the feminist movement. Because women have no agency (i.e. means to exert power) to enforce their will, feminists knew that if they were going to fight against the patriarchy (i.e. the rule of men, or literally interpreted, "rule of the father"), they had to influence the men to get their way because most women were standing in their way.

suffrage (n): the right to vote
(See 'suffrage', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012; I would have included a definition for "anti-suffrage" but that is not listed in the dictionary.)

It is the fake news media and government-funded history books that have convinced Americans that women's suffrage was a good thing. Sadly, even School House Rock, which has generally been a good source of Constitutional education, bought into the feminist narrative, hook, line, and sinker.


We have been lied to because, in reality, most men and women rejected women having a right to vote. Women knew that having the vote meant that they would have to take on the responsibilities of having that privilege, including being drafted into war, and serving jury duty, which they absolutely did not want.

This controversy created two factions of women, the suffragettes, which were a tiny minority of women who wanted the right to vote, and the now lesser-known anti-suffragettes, which were the vast majority of women who did NOT want the right to vote. On November 5th, 1895, Massachusetts women were permitted to vote on whether or not they wanted the right to vote, and of the 4% of voting-age women who turned out for the election, 36.76% (109,174) voted 'Yes', while 63.24% (187,837) women said 'No'.
(See Ballotpedia, "Massachusetts Women's Suffrage for Local Elections Advisory Question (1895)," retrieved June 20, 2024, [https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Women%27s_Suffrage_for_Local_Elections_Advisory_Question_(1895)])

This shows us that a large number of women were against having the right to vote. A great deal of money went into protests and campaigns to get women to vote 'Yes', but despite all that funding, far more women showed up to vote 'No'. Meanwhile, 96% of women did not show up to vote because, obviously, they did not want any part of the dispute because the great majority of women were not interested in having the vote.

In 1914, the Nebraska Association Opposed to Women Suffrage published this pamphlet to get the word out about women against the vote: "BECAUSE they [the great majority of women] have not lost faith in their fathers, husbands, sons and brothers, who afford full protection to the community, there being no call for women to relieve them of the task.
BECAUSE women realize that when they become voters they will in consequence have to serve as jurors, and be compelled to hear all the repugnant details incident to murder trials and trials for other crimes disclosing unspeakable wickedness. Jury service is abhorrent to every normal woman.
BECAUSE in political activities there is constant strife, turmoil, contention and bitterness, producing conditions from which every normal woman naturally shrinks.
BECAUSE the primary object of government is to protect persons and property. This duty is imposed by nature upon man, the women being by nature absolved from assuming a task to them impossible.
BECAUSE when women noisily contest and scramble for public office — woman pitted against woman — they write an indictment of womankind against which all right-minded women strenuously protest.
BECAUSE women can accomplish more through counseling than they ever can attain through commanding.
BECAUSE woman suffrage will not enhance peace and harmony in the home, but, on the contrary, in the heat of a campaign, it is sure to bring about dissension and discord.
BECAUSE Nebraska women are already enjoying a greater measure of protection and privilege under the laws than do women of any state where women vote.
BECAUSE the woman worker wants rest and quietude — not political excitement.
BECAUSE every reason supporting the claim of women to vote supports also the right of women to be consulted as to whether they shall or shall not be given the ballot. "
-Nebraska State Historical Society, "Ten Reasons Why The Great Majority of Women Do Not Want the Ballot," 1914, nebraskastudies.org, retrieved June 21, 2024, [https://d1vmz9r13e2j4x.cloudfront.net/nebstudies/0703_0303ten.pdf]

I applauded the phrase "normal woman," which heavily implied that feminists are not normal, but rather, feminists are a weird species that is abhorrant to nature. All of these are sound reasons that no rational mind could argue against, and just reading this helps to restore faith that, without feminist philosophy to corrode the mind, most women can be sensible.

Although society has deteriorated over the century since this document was published, most women still wince and turn away at the sight of horrific crimes, and therefore, such things are best left to men. Most women are naturally non-controversial, which makes them unsuited for strife and contention, which are better handled by men who are designed to settle those matters.

Furthermore, the participation in strife and contention in politics has most certainly given women a bad name. Girls do not receive the same training that boys do in restraining themselves in conflict, and so women are more likely to lash out in ridiculous and embarrassing ways, which is a negative reflection on women as a whole, especially when they are in a state-wide or national spotlight.

And finally, as I mentioned previously, women have no agency to enforce the vote. When a vote is finalized, an office or power or rule of law is established, but if that office, power, or law is challenged, women must call upon men to enforce it, which means that women generally do not belong in those positions of power.

To give an analogy, imagine for a moment that a restaurant was looking to hire an executive chef, and they were interested in a particular applicant that had a very good-looking résumé, but once the applicant showed up, they discover he has no arms. Of course, there may be some activist groups that will be upset that the restaurant is "discriminating" against the armless man by not hiring him, but a very basic use of reasoning tells us that you cannot rightly call an armless man an "executive chef" if he has to appeal to others to make his food for him.

Another analogy woud be a couple searching for a surrogate mother, and they find someone who has an excellent résumé, with a medical degree and a lifetime of study in midwifery, but when the applicant shows up, it turns out to be a man. The point is that it is senseless to hire someone to do a job, no matter how much knowledge they might have, if they do not have the power to perform the fullness of that job.

It should not have to be said that I acknowledge the existence of women in politics today, and there are some (albeit, quite rare) female politicians I think are doing a good job, but female politicians are unnecessary. In fact, every time I see a female politician doing what is right and good for the state, I think to myself, "Where are the men standing up to do this job?" because it is the duty of men to do this work, and I find it a sad state of affairs that men who are willing to stand up in the face of evil have become so scarce that our little girls have to step up to fight our battles for us.

The following is a late 19-century flyer produced by anti-suffragists:
The 19th century feminists spun a media narrative that the anti-suffragettes were a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists, who were panicking that the entire foundation of society would collapse if feminists were permitted to have their way. What is somewhat humorous about the above flyer is that, at first glance, I could not tell for sure if it was an anti-suffragette message, or if it was a meme created to reflect what has taken place in the 21st century because everything the anti-suffragettes predicted has come to pass.

Many anti-suffragist groups were formed around the turn the 20th century, and one of those was the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS), and the following is a pamplet they produced:
This was an attempt to reason with women that, in the end, the solutions to basic problems in life will never come through political action:
"Housewives! You do not need a ballot to clean out yours ink spout. A handful of potash [salts with potassium in water-soluble form] and some boiling water is quicker and cheaper... Why vote for pure food laws, when your husband does that... Sulpho naphthol and elbow grease drive out bugs quicker than political hot air... clean houses and good homes, which cannot be provided by legislation, keep children healthier and happier than any number of uplift laws. Butter on a fresh burn takes out the sting. But what removes the sting of political defeat?... The following methods for removing spots and stains will be found efficacious... There is, however, no method known by which mud-stained reputations may be cleansed after bitter political campaigns."
(See Jewish Women's Archive, "Pamphlet Distributed by the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage," retrieved June 25, 2024, [http://suffrageandthemedia.org/source/pamphlet-distributed-national-association-opposed-woman-suffrage/])

This makes practical sense because a woman's joy is her home and children. Even feminists prefer clean, stainless clothes and a happy home, but voting and political warfare do nothing to achieve those ends, and in truth, government involvement in most things results in a deterioration of home and family.

Although these types of arguments are foreign concepts to the 21st-century generation, they are still sensible arguments that the "normal women" of the previous century understood. Another Massachusetts vote for suffrage was taken in 1915, which turned out to be worse for feminists because the "normal women" won a landslide victory against the suffragettes:
"The largest number of votes any political party polled in Massachusetts before 1915 was 278,976. The anti-suffragists polled 295,939. Since 1896 there has been but one instance in which voters gained a pluarlity amounting to 110,000 votes. The anti-suffragists won by 133,447 votes. Alton B. Parker's defeat by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 is commonly regarded as typifying political annihilation; but the suffragists [yowling feminists] in 1915 did not poll as many votes as Mr. Parker, and the anti-suffragists [normal women] polled 38,000 more than President Roosevelt at the height of his populary. Such outworn words as 'overwhelming' and 'landlide,' which have been regularly used to describe victories not half so great as this, understate the actual extent of the anti-suffrage triumph. The pronounced aversion which Massachusetts showed towards Horace Greeley in the presidential campaign of 1872, and towards William J. Bryan in that of 1896, scarcely exceeded that which she feels towards the suffragists today.
The grounds of this aversion are so numerous that it is difficult to determine which of the many causes of the anti-suffrage victory were the most powerful. In my opinion, however, Massachusetts men defeated woman suffrage chiefly because (1) they discovered that nine women out of ten did not want to vote; (2) they knew that the creation of a large body of stay-at-home voters would result in bad government; and (3) they grew disgusted with the temperament, the notions, and the methods typical of the few women who clamored for the vote."
-Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. ix-x, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n11/mode/2up]

In other words, the suffragettes lost because:

Roughly 90% of women did NOT want the right to vote. Housewives are not well-equipped to make rationale voting decisions. Women in politics end up causing great embarassment to themselves, and leave a bad impression upon all women, by their poor attitudes, their ridiculous sentiments, and their underhanded methods of combat.

It is no secret that women fight differently than men, and examples of this can be seen in public high schools. Two young men will get into a fight, face each other head on, and then afterwards, they either maintain boundaries from each other or shake hands and reconcile in respect to each other, even occasionally becoming friends post-combat. However, two young women will get into a fight, striking when the other is not looking, and fighting dirty (e.g. hair pulling, scratching, etc), and afterwards they will be arch-enemies for the rest of their lives, and if that type of underhanded combat is superimposed into the political world, things will deteriorate very quickly.

The female nature of nuturing, as well as their duty of birthing and raising children, automatically separates them from the questions of political intrigue. This is why, a century after women were given the vote, now that the majority (55%) of voters are women, and the majority of those voting women are voting in complete ignorance, having little to no understanding of the deeper economic consequences of their votes, having little to no understanding of the policies of the men and women they vote for, and yet, continue to vote simply because they are told that they "won" the right to do so, which not much different than a child choosing whether they think red or blue is the prettiest color.

Women have always enjoyed wonderful privileges and protections under patriarchal systems of government, and feminists have continually tried to deceive women, to make them discontented, by spreading lies and deceptions. For example, an early 20th-century suffragette pamphlet entitled, "Twenty Facts About Woman Suffrage," said the following under #15:
"Arizona, California, Colorado and Washington are the only States in the Union which have eight-hour laws for working women."
-Martha G. Stapler, The Woman Suffrage Year Book, 1917, p. 21, [University of California, Berkeley]

Those states established work regulations that limited how long a woman's work shift could be, which was to prevent women being overworked by companies that might try to take advantage of them. (i.e. The company might force them to work longer hours or be fired.) However, feminists failed to mention or recognize that it was MEN who put those laws on the books to protect women.

Furthermore, feminists purposefully ignored the fact that 8-hour work laws that applied to men in other states ALSO applied to women by default (without women having to be mentioned), they ignored the fact that the laws in those four states did NOT apply to the largest industry in which women worked (i.e. the canning industry at the time), and they ignored the fact that the laws in those four states did not apply to night-shift work, meaning that women who worked late shifts would still have to work over the time limitations of the law. However, in the states that prohibited women's suffrage, the men had laws on the books that protected women in the canning industry, as well as night shifts, and because women enjoyed such protections and privileges under the benevolence of the patriarchy, 90% of women were quite happy to NOT have voting rights.

There are many phenomenal anti-suffragette women who, after reading their arguments against suffrage, have earned my respect, and I would love to share the fullness of their arguments in this book. Sadly, due to the lack of space one has in a single book, I can only include portions of some of them, but I would encourage anyone to read a fantastic book called Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women by Dr. Ernest Bernbaum of Harvard University, and you will find some of the hardest-hitting, slam-dunk arguments against suffrage and feminism in general, and they all come from women who had a great deal of political influence at the turn of the 20th century, despite the fact that they did not have (and did not want) the right to vote.

For example, Sara C. White, the wife of Henry P. White, attended the Emma Willard School of Troy in New York (which defies the fake feminist narrative that women in this time period were not permitted education), and she was a member of the Auxiliary Board of Directors of the Brookline Day Nursery, a member of the Committee on Ventilation of Public Conveyances (i.e. a women's self-governance league), and worked on moving-picture shows with the Brookline Friendly Society. Mrs. White eloquently stated that the only reason women's suffrage was getting backing was because of the benevolence of men:
"The argument that the woman in industry needs the ballot in order to obtain fair wages and fair working conditions has undoubtedly made many converts to the cause of woman suffrage. The sympathies of the average man, who is ever solicitous [showing great care and concern] for the welfare of women, go out especially to the woman who must compete with men in the work-a-day world. And so, when he is told that there are 8,000,000 such women in this country, and that their lot would be much easier if they could vote, he is apt to think it worth a trial anyway and to give his support, without further consideration, to the 'votes for women' movement."
-Sara C. White, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 31-32, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n33/mode/2up]

So Sara is telling us that men are kind and considerate to women, and because of that, men often permit things to women that will make their lives easier, which why it is so ergregious when women lie to the men who want to do good for them. Sara continues in her essay to argue that women getting involved in politics would not do any good to improve working conditions for females, and would end up making things worse because, when women get the vote, they must take the responsibilities that come with that vote, and therefore, they would lose the wonderful advantages they get from the hard work of men.

Sara then said:
"The premise of the suffrage argument that the woman in industry needs the ballot in order to get fair treatment is the assumption that she now fails to get as fair treatment as is given the industrial man, and that this is due to the fact that she has no vote. This arbitrary assumption is without justification either in fact or reason. Every law placed upon the statute-books of any state for the benefit of the working man is a blanket law and covers men and women engaged in the same industry. All the benefits that have accrued to the working man through legislation are enjoyed equally by his sister in industry. In addition she has the advantage of special protective laws which have been enacted simply because she is a woman—because she is weaker physically than man and because she is a potential mother and must be protected in the interest of the race."
-Sara C. White, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 33, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n35/mode/2up]

This supports what I pointed out earlier, how laws are created for the benefit of men, and apply to women automatically, but Sara adds that there are many additional laws which benefit women ONLY, meaning that men give them to women, and men do not get benefit out of them, but rather, men have to sacrifice so that women will have them. Therefore, if the feminists and suffragettes were to get their way, to fight for equality, women would LOSE their privileges, and would suffer the consequences of it, which has happend.

In the early 21st century, moronic queers have decided, in the name of "equality," that a man can identify himself as a "woman" by declaration alone, and therefore, he can gain the special benefits of women, but in reality, that is a loss of benefits for women. So, for example, when a man who identifies as a "woman" can use the women's restroom, or the women's lockerroom, or the women's shower (all of which are happening today), women lose the safe space that men have provided for them for their protection and privacy.

Pushing for "equality" between the sexes elminates the societal rules men setup for the protection of women. It is a shame that I must write that sentence in this book because it is such a simple notion, but feminist ideology has corroded the common powers of reason, leaving me with no choice.

Edith Melvin's father was confined to his bed for years after an injury during service in the Civil War, and after his death, his wife and only child were left to fend for themselves. Edith managed to train herself in stenography and typewriting, which was a newly-needed skill at that time, and she walked into a law office with no prior legal experience, and ended up working for a judge for 20 years. Because of her hardship in her youth, she was a member of various organizations that helped young men and women, and she wrote:
"After more than two decades spent in active business life, I am of the opinion that members of my sex do not need the ballot, and that it would be a distinct and unnecessary encumbrance to them. For more than twenty years, I regret to state, my life has been more that of a man than a woman. A home-supporter by the actual work of my hands and my brain, rather than a home-maker; my life has been past amid the heat and turmoil of business life, working shoulder to shoulder with men, pitting my brain against the brains of men; and having no male relative to represent me in the business of the government, a taxpayer 'without representation.' That business life has been satisfactory to me in many ways, I admit; but in order to wrest its satisfactions from the turmoil, I have been forced to summon up the determination, the endurance, the physical and mental labor, which by all the laws of nature belong not to the 'female of the species' but to the male. Its successes have been apparent successes when considered as parallel with man's work in the world, but failures when one considers that not for the sharp, insistent contact of business life was woman created. I still feel no desire to assist the male sex in the business of government, nor do I think I am fitted so to do. I desire to be permitted to continue my present freedom from political activities, and I am content to leave that part of life's work in the hands of the sex which, to my mind, has managed it hitherto exceedingly well."
-Edith Melvin, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 39, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n41/mode/2up]

Edith put the words "without representation" in quotations to parrot the suffragettes, who claimed that they did not have representation in government even though they were taxed. Not only did Edith not believe she was without representation (because men use law to protect women), but we also need to consider that, even with the vote, most Americans (both men and women) today do not get proper representation, even though they can vote, and they are taxed into oblivion.

In her essay, Edith went on to say that she had never seen one place in her life where her cast of a ballot would have helped her in the slightest. One of the primary reasons I wanted to provide some of her testimony is because feminists want to say that she needed the vote to get the government to give her special benefits, even though she is a self-made woman who did not need special benefits from feminists because she worked hard, which is the "Schrödinger's feminist" paradox; is she a strong, independent woman, or is she a victim?

Edith then warns men about women:
"The instability of the female mind is beyond the comprehension of the majority of men. The charm, the 'sweet unreasonableness,' the lack of power of consecutive thought upon any intricate problem, which mark the average woman are sometimes attractive and in personal or family relations not without compensating advantages. In the business world, however, these attributes are wholly detrimental. Business women might possibly bring to political matters such training and experience as they acquired, but to restrict the franchise to them would be to create a class franchise. We must remember that suffrage would bring to the electorate not merely the small number of business women, but the great mass of women who have had little or no experience of life outside of their homes."
-Edith Melvin, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 41-42, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n41/mode/2up]

This paragraph was so interesting, accurate, and eloquently stated, I need to break this down. First of all, Edith, as a self-made single career woman, warns men that the female mind is far more unstable than we can even comprehend.

Indeed, women have a particular charm to them, a sweetness in their unreasonable or misunderstanding mindset, which makes them endearing, and causes men to come to her aid. It is an attractive power specific to females which can seduce men into acquiescing to her desires, despite the fact that her will could destroy the foundations of the home, business, and society.

Because of this, women in business automatically create for themselves a "class franchise," which gives girls special privileges in the work place, and that weakens the business as a whole. Men without privileges have to work and fight to overcome the lack of privilege, which makes them stronger, faster, and smarter than women in the same field, and therefore, to bring these types of business women into the political world has had the same effect, weakening the overall power of legislation, decreasing the public's respect for government in general, and establishing welfare laws that have deteriorated our nation.

Ellen Burrill was a graduate of Lynn Classical High School, a member of the Lynn Historical Society, and authored many books in her lifetime. She rightly noted that women voting would cause serious problems:
"Government being one mens to the end, of making better conditions, the indifference of so many thousand is beyond comprehension, and is a serious menace to the Commonwealth. It was Governor Curtis Guild who said: 'I base my anti-suffrage position on the fact that our great failures in legislation are caused not so much by a vicious element among the voters, as by abstention from voting and emotional voting.'"
-Ellen Burrill, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 44, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n47/mode/2up]

The vast majority of people capable of voting do not vote, and please do not misunderstand because there is nothing wrong with someone's abtention on the grounds that they believe both candidates are corrupt; rather, the problem is with those who are indifferent to importance of governing bodies, and because they have no philosophical interest in societal morality and the rights of the people (because prosperity often breeds apathy), they are too lazy to get involved enough to learn the policies and make a decision. This problem is amplified in women because women have no natural interest in the combatative nature of the political arena, and when given the power to cast a ballot, they (far more often than not) vote emotionally, which makes them a target of manipulation by the minority of socialists and communists who want to tear down the liberty-based system of goverment God has given to us.

Therefore, allowing women to have the right to vote is a vulnerability to our nation. This is why ruling family elites, like the Rockefellers, funded the women's liberation movement; allowing them to take control of the nation by getting women out of their nuturing position in the home and into the slave-labor work force.

Ellen also went on to discuss the cost of elections, and this was also one of my concerns as I was studying this matter because elections cost money and taxpayers have to pay the bill. Americans tend to forget this in our current socialist conditioning, but elections are not free of charge. Costs of election are based on registered voters, not turnout, and so the more people you have registered to vote, the more money it costs, which means higher taxes will be required to pay for women to vote , and it is not women that pay the majority of those taxes, so once again, men have to pay for the privileges of women, and not just privilege, but for the lackadaisical, ignorant, and emotional female votes that waste everyone's time and erode our nation.

And for those of you who think that debates now are different from those in the previous century, they were not. The same stupidity that is happening now is the same stupidity that was happening then.

Catherine Robinson, a student at Radcliffe in 1911, was a former suffragist, but after studying the question of women voting, she realized the delusions of feminists and became an anti-suffragette: "Not long ago I heard D. Anna Howard Shaw, the President of the National Woman Suffrage Association, say at Springfield: 'Laws have nothing to do with this questions of woman suffrage; facts have nothing to do with it. I shall not answer facts. We do not promise to do great things for women; why should we? All we ask is the right to vote.' All suffrage speakers are not so frank about their inability to answer facts as Dr. Shaw is, nor do they cease from claiming that good laws for women exist chiefly in suffrage states."
-Ellen Burrill, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 63, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n65/mode/2up]

Feminists cannot win debates based on facts and logic, and so they must resort to shady tactics, like lying and manipulation. At the very least, we can credit this feminist, Anna Shaw, with being honest, in that she would not use her reason to offer an answer to the facts because the facts warred against her, so like the feminists of the 21st century, she instead choose intellectual silence, and continued to whine.

Mrs. Alice Allen, a member of the Woman's Municipal League, an organizer in the Department of Streets and Alleys, a member of the Woman's Education Association, and Chairman of Boston Committee on the work of District Nursing, wrote that women's suffrage was destroying women:
"To me the chief reason why political duties should not be imposed on women is the effect that this preliminary dip into politics, this struggle for votes-for-women, is having on the women themselves. It is surely not making them any more lovely, or pleasant in their lives. They grow bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic, liking the excitement of campaigning and finding their natural, proper duties, 'flat, stale, and unprofitable.' Speaking from platforms and being constantly in the public eye, does not improve women. We anti-suffragists have taken part in a political campaign to keep ourselves out of politics for the rest of our lives, and to keep our daughters out of politics, but we know that in a proper division of duty we have better work to do along civic, sanitary, and philanthropic lines, and in our homes, than to be, as our Western sisters [i.e. feminists] are, out campaigning for candidates, and engaged in struggles for political supremacy."
-Alice R. Allen, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 77-78, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n79/mode/2up]

Please keep in mind that every anti-suffragette I have quoted in this chapter was involved in politics indirectly through charitable organizations and occupations because women have always been involved on the sidelines. In states where women's suffrage was rejected, men often passed laws based on bills that were introduced by women for the benefit of women and children. Despite decades of feminists trying to rewrite history to make themselves look better than the putrid pestilence of socialism that they are, many women in the 19th century worked in all branches of government, volunteering their time for charitable causes to help children and communties, which (in the long run) lowers crime and increases productivity, and those women are vital to maintaining a healthy society for the benefit of all, but after women got the vote, things started to change for the worse.

The political arena demands that men choose a side, and so they go to the red side or the blue side, the Republicans or the Democrats, and fight out their differences, but women had a special advantage that allowed them to take the moral high ground in the disputes. By NOT being involved in politics, and by not having the vote, they could work as women, in their feminine nature, to do the things that are important for nurturing society, and when they saw a need that required government intervention, they could bring their cause to the both sides and ask, "Which of you men will rise to the occasion and help our cause?"

Women used to be a force working outside the boundaries of politics to heavily influence men at war to come together to do good for others. However, once women got the vote and entered the political arena, they lost the moral high ground, were forced to choose between red or blue, and join the bickering battle, not only turning women into another rat in the maze, but also ruining their good reputation as the caretakers of society.

If you thought this to be sound reason, and a compliment to the nature of women created in them by God, we must keep in mind that sin still abounds, and because many women love drama and intrigue, there are some self-serving women who love to agitate people only for the sake of striking up conflict. Mrs. Caroline Parker, an anti-suffragette and former President of the Vincent Club (dedicated to women's health), said:
"If the energy and vast sums of money squandered to promote suffrage in this country had been expended to bring about the reforms [i.e. charitable works for the community] which the suffragists claim will be at once brought about by their votes, the reforms would all have been accomplished long ago. But do the suffragist leaders care a jot about the reforms? We hear of a Seattle woman who, now that she can vote in her own city, leaves home and husband to come East and agitate for suffrage. Little does she care that her husband sues for divorce on the ground of desertion. It is the excitement of agitation that she craves—the duties and responsibilities of the ballot are of no interest whoatsoever to her. A mayor in a city near Boston appointed a suffragist on the city planning board. Did she eagerly grasp the chance to plan the city so that it should be a joy and a blessing to its inhabitants for all time? Not at all. She said that the mayor did not consult her, that she had not even known there was a city planning board, and that she would not think of serving on it in any case."
-Caroline M. Parker, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 81-82, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n83/mode/2up]

In the 21st century, a new term was created to label such lazy people who like to portray that they have a cause, but do nothing to actually help that cause. They are called "slacktivists," which is an ironic combination of 'activist' with the word 'slack', meaning one who is not active.

As I pointed out in the previous chapter, feminists are not fighting for women's equality in garbage collection, sewage, oil rigging, coal mining, brick laying, roofing, high-rise construction, or any other labor that would be physically taxing and mentally stressful because they only want "equality" when it gives them something for nothing. Feminists often look to be hired as spokeswomen for feminism, magazine editors for feminism, and professors of women's studies, all of which are completely useless positions that serve no purpose to help communities, and are a benefit only to the feminists themselves, using the funding from elitist groups (that benefit from feminist propaganda to push the communist agenda) to give themselves clout and a salary, unlike the anti-suffragettes, who actually volunteered their time, and made loving sacrifices for noble causes.

One of the more surprising aspects in reading the anti-suffragette testimonies is the predictive accuracy of the women who fought against the vote; to the point that they could be called political prophets. Elizabeth Jackson, a graduate of Radcliffe College (Summa cum laude) 1913, while working on her Ph.D (which feminists assert that women could not do at the time), wrote about how women made up nearly all elementary and high school teachers, and proposed a thought experiment:
"The connection between the schools and politics is already lamentably close. Many districts, with administrations predominantly of one party or religious sect choose first teachers of that sect, good or bad, and sisters and daughters of voters of that party; then enough women to complete the necessary number. Suppose that the teacher, instead of being the daughter of the voter, holds the vote herself. The evil would become universal. There is no indication that a woman's salary and position under such circumstances be more directly conditioned upon her abilities as a teacher. The chances are that woman suffrage would tend to make the schoo more truly the servant of the party in power than of the general good. Moreover, a vote can be used as a commodity of exchange; and the woman-voter who amid the flucutations of city politics would protect her position by a shrewd use of her ballot would hardly be the best school mistress of American youth... Anything which tends to increase the possibility of opposition between the teacher and the child's family, and makes the child's attitude partisan is a menace. Suffrage in this field as in so many others, offers no compensation for the increased friction and unrest."
-Elizabeth Jackson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 88-89, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n91/mode/2up]

Elizabeth rightly explained how giving women the vote allowed them power they should not have rightly had to exploit the public school system, and she rightly predicted exactly what is happening today. We now have a situation that, not only is public education provided by unconstitutional and unjust taxation, but that tax money is going to fund teachers who are not paid based on performance, but paid based on political influence, which has caused a lot of corruption I have seen it with my own eyes, both as a grade-school student and an adult.

Elizabeth also wrote about two concerns, the first of which was for the students, that they would suffer in their education, not in the sense of reading, writing and arithmatic (because feminism does not change those principles), but in the sense of the extent to which they will learn because the judgments of female teachers would be less tempermental when having to involve themselves in direct conflict with fathers as natural political enemies. The second problem is that once women have the vote, it destroys the stable system in place, and offers no remedy to solve "friction and unrest" in the community, which is a problem schools are still dealing with over a century later.

The examples that could given to prove feminists have used propaganda to lie to the public about history are countless, and the lie that women had influence or capability to produce change in government was one of the most absurd. Mrs. Dorothy Wayman, who did much organized charity work, provided numerous examples in her essay about how women were able to get laws passed for the good of their state.

I have witnessed feminists lying so frequently, I believe almost nothing that comes out of their mouths anymore, and what people need to understand is that they have been lying to the public from the very beginning. They lied about how much women were accomplishing before they got the vote:
"Miss Jane Addams, in a suffrage speech in Boston, claimed that by means of the ballot women in Chicago have accomplished several important reforms. These were:
1. Covered markets had been secured where food might be kept clean.
2. A court for boys of 17 and under 25 had been established.
3. Public wash-houses have been established.
4. The garbage dumps have been abolished.
The record of accomplishments of Chicago women voters as presented by Miss Addams is not impressive, for the reforms she cites have been accomplished in other cities without votes for women. What the women accomplished in Chicago before they got the vote makes a much more impressive showing. It is to them, says the Chicago Tribune, that Chicago owes the kindergarten in the public school, the juvenile court and detention home, the small park and playground movement, the vacation school, the school extension, the establishment of a forestry department of the city government, the city welfare exhibit, the development of the Saturday half-holiday, the establishment of public comfort stations, the work of the Legal Aid Society, and the reformation of the Illinois Industrial School. This is a long and brilliant list of women's achievements, not to be matched by the voting women of any state. Chicago women were working together when these things were accomplished—now they are fighting each other in rival politics."
-Margaret C. Robinson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 111-112, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n113/mode/2up]

Women getting the right to vote did not get more accomplished; rather, less was accomplished because it caused women to start fighting each other instead of getting work done. One of the examples in Elizabeth Jackson's essay concerned Mrs. Albion Bacon's efforts to get the Indiana Model Housing Act passed, which put standards on rental property, so that landlords were required to do renovations that were in line with basic health and safety regulations:
"Mrs. Bacon was supported by the Federated Woman's Clubs of her State, and enlisted the aid of earnest men and women citizens throughout the State. Her bill was bitterly contested by the worst class of landlords, but after three sessions of the Legislature, at which Mrs. Bacon was obliged to appear in person and explain her bill, it was passed. She says of that day: 'The women, the homes of Indiana, were honored that day by the men of the Legislature, and we had won a law for the 101 cities of our State. No wonder the women applauded as some of the men who gave their reasons, added "and because the women wanted it".' Her conclusion is: 'Most strongly have I desired to show how much can be done by women's organizations by simply demanding right legislation, and to show their equally important part of helping to enforce legislation after they get it. Speaking of her own work, she says: 'Having no hand in the management of political affairs, I may leave to the various political parties the care of reaping the thorns in each other's fields. It has been my pleasant task to gather only the grapes... and that we might include in the conversation of vital resources those great powers for good that are now so wasted by constant warring for political supremacy.'
That last sentence forms a scathing indictment of the shortsightedness of suffrage policy. It is pitiful to think of the energy and ability which today is diverted from channels of human helpfulness to this sensational struggle for mistaken cause. It is not to be thought of that we can permit woman's energy to be permanently dissipated in political warfare or handicapped by party vicissitudes. [every-changing difficulties]"
-Dorothy G. Wayman, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 95-96, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n99/mode/2up]

Women never needed the vote to get things done, and in contradiction to what many Americans believe today (due to the manipulation of feminist propaganda), women had more feminine power under patriarchal rule without the vote. Again, having to choose a political party creates conflict which hinders good works, but having no political affiliation allows one to focus only on the good works at hand without dispute.

Remember what Elizabeth Jackson pointed out, that with the vote comes the ability to leverage that vote, which allows women to manipulate the system to gain power and money, or gives opportunity to evil men to offer women power and money in exchange for their political influence. Without the vote, evil men that might seek to give a woman power or money for her vote will no longer seek to manipulate her because she has no agency in those matters, which frees women to live according to their God-given feminine nature, and their charitable works will make society a much better place to live.

This understanding is echoed by Mrs. Margaret Robinson, wife of a Harvard University professor, and was the holder of President and Vice-President positions of many charitable organizations:
"We have now, in the eastern and middle states, a body of non-political women workers of incomparable value, and one is amazed at the wrong-headedness which would deprive society of their influence. Under present conditions the intelligent woman interesed in public affairs brings the full force of her influence to bear upon legislation; her influence is a moral influence—it is direct and can be used with men of all political parties. The possession of this unprejudiced, unrestricted power is something which anti-suffragists value so highly that the threat of the suffragists to destroy it is a very serious grievance."
-Margaret C. Robinson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 98-99, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n101/mode/2up]

When a woman introduces a bill, before the merits of her ideas are considered, the first thing everyone looks at is her party affiliation, which immediately creates bias against her in the minds of many. Even if she introduces a bill that is a bad idea, there are many who will support her anyway just because she is of the same political party. Women could gain much more influence by not having the vote because she would be guaranteed to NOT be affiliated with any party, and thus, having the moral high ground, she would gain the listening attentioning of all parties because she is seen only as a woman concerned for the good of society.

This used to be the power that women held in this nation. Feminists destroyed that power, and the only way to get it back is when enough women get together and DEMAND that men repeal the 19th Amendment, and take back women's right to vote.

And once feminists destroyed the feminine power women held in society, the results were as many anti-suffragists predicted:
"A despatch from Topeka, Kansas, describing the recent campaign in that state says that three years ago the Kansas Federation of Women's Clubs lined up solidly for suffrage, and won it—and that they have not been lined up solidly for anything since! Instead of throwing their influence as a unit for good legislation, as women's clubs are wont [customed] to do in male suffrage states [where women do not have the vote], these women are divided into Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists, and the friction among them is greater than ever before."
-Margaret C. Robinson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 99-100, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n101/mode/2up]

The public education system has done immense damage to the minds of women by telling them that suffrage was a good thing, when in truth, it was destructive to femininity. Women need to understand that there were certain powerful men of political and corporate interest who hated the influence that women had because it was so effective against wrongdoings of industry, and they wanted to destroy the power women held, so they backed the feminists, hiding behind the curtain of "benevolence" to gain political clout while they destroyed the unity and influence that women used against the corporate machine:
"The influence of this moral force is so strong and has come to be so well recognized that certain types of politicians and commercial interests rebel against it. They wish to destroy it, and as the best means to that end they advocate—woman suffrage! That is not at all in line with what one is told at suffrage meetings. We are told that women need the ballot in order that they may improve the conditions in the home, that they may help the working girl, and put through good legislation. But the rank and file of suffragists are being deceived in these matters, for suffrage works, and will work directly the other way. The New York World has committed a great indiscretion and has let this cat out of the bag. The World recently came out for suffrage and gave its reasons. One of them is that a few women, representing perhaps ten per cent of the sex, have under present conditions too much influence. These women, the World says, 'have maintained at times a reign of terror over legislative bodies, in consequence of which half the country is now bedeviled by some form or other of harem government, and legislators are forever making ridiculous concessions to women agitators.' These 'women agitators' are, of course, the club women, social workers, and others interested in social welfare. In order to make it unnecessary for legislators to make 'ridiculous concessions' to this type of woman, the World advocates—what? Giving the vote to all women! It has certainly hit upon the most effective expedient, and it is because the vote will do exactly what the World claims for it, that anti-suffragists are so opposed to it. The World says that most of the reasons urged in favor of suffrage are fantastic and unreal, that women are not purer and more noble than men, and that they are not so wise as men in general affairs. It admits that they will not purify politics—indeed, that they will confuse and disorganize government, without reforming it; but nevertheless it believes in woman suffrage because it will destroy the power of the ten per cent of women whose influence is now so strong!"
-Margaret C. Robinson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 102-103, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n105/mode/2up]

It is hard not to feel righteous indignation that a great influence for unity to work for the good of others was destroyed by corrupt men (i.e. CEOs, lobbyists, politicians, etc), wolves hiding under a sheep's garb, who used and paid ignorant women (i.e. feminists) to do their bidding, and they are still doing it to this day. However, do not lose heart ladies! This influence CAN be restored, but only if women band together, as they once did a century ago, and fight to educate the people, not just to remove women's vote, but to DEMAND that men do the right thing and repeal the 19th Amendment.

Feminist and suffragist Anna Shaw, who was ordained a minister of the Methodist denomination in 1873, gave a speech in which she said:
"I believe in woman suffrage whether all women vote or not women vote; whether all women vote right or all women vote wrong; whether all women will love their husbands after they vote or forsake them; whether they will neglect their children or never have any children."
-Anna H. Shaw, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 115, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n117/mode/2up]

In context, this was commanded specifically to women in the church, meaning that when gathered together to worship of God in study of His Word, women should be submissive:

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
-1 Timothy 2:8-12

In addition to the fact that Shaw was in rebellion against Christ because she took up teaching authority over the church (i.e. meaning she was an anti-christ woman by nature, and so were all those who put her into that ministering position), she obviously did not care about any negative consequences that might come through women's suffrage. Such an uncharitable attitude is unbecoming of a minister of Christ, and one more reason why women should not be in such teaching authority in the church because it puts a blot on ministers, a blot on women in general, and most importantly, it puts a blot on the holy name of Jesus Christ.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
-2 Thessalonians 3:6

And if any man [i.e. anyone who claims to be of Christ] obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
-2 Thessalonians 3:14

The rational women retorted with a message brimming with sound reason:
"The question for intelligent women to decide is whether or not they want this influence destroyed. If they wish to give up the moral influence which a body of women, educated, public-spirited, non-partisan, can wield—an influence so strong that legislators feel obliged to make what the World [newspaper] calls 'ridiculous concessions' to it—if in its stead they wish to depend on political influence gained through the ballot, which can be applied only to one party, which can be entirely offset by the votes of women who are ignorant, boss-controlled, and whose votes are purchasable—if they prefer that, they will get their wish if woman suffrage wins. That is exactly how it is working out in the suffrage states... In her admirable anti-suffrage address before the Maine legislature at the recent hearing on suffrage, Mrs. J.F.A. Merrill said: 'What do men do when they want to bring about a reform? They do as the men of Portland did a short time ago, when a number of citizens became convinced that the moral conditions in Portland were not what they should be. And what did they do? Did they vote about it? Did they form party organizations? No; they resorted as nearly as they could, to what is known as 'women's methods,' and formed a non-partisan citizen's committee, just as detached as possible from politics. And why did they resort to women's methods? Simply because they had all had the vote since coming of age, and they all knew how useless it is as a menas of accomplishing reform work. Gentlemen, in every community there are a handful of women who can be relied upon to carry on church and philanthropic and reform work; but we all know that the vast majority are indifferent, and that they neither help nor hinder. And then there is a third class of women—the wrongminded. They do not hinder reform work now, because they cannot. But, gentlemen, when you give the ballot to all women, your handful of earnest women in each community, who are willing to give their time and thought to reform work, will have only their handful of ballots to cast for reform measures; your great mass of indiffernt women will be indifferent still, and will omit to cast their ballots, and your very considerable number of wrongminded women will have had a weapon put into their hands which they will not omit to use against your reform measures, because it is of importance to them to see to it that their way of life is not interfered with. So for the sake of reform which women have done in the past, and ought to be able to do in the future, we beg of you not to tie their hands and hamper them by giving suffrage to women!"
-Margaret C. Robinson, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 103-104, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n105/mode/2up]

Women's suffrage benefitted some and hurt others. Who did it hurt? It hurt the women who get out and get work done, who care about others, who give alms for the poor, who help make society a beautiful place in which to live. Women's suffrage took power and influence away from the hard-working, honest, and charitable females, who should be honored for their great contributions.

Who did suffrage benefit? It benefitted men of commercial and political greed, who hated the influence of charitable women getting in the way of their nefarious activities, and so by giving voting power to willfully-ignorant, easily-discontented female slack-tivists, who are completely self-minded, and who could not care less about the community in which they live, they made themselves appear benevolent to women while destroying them at the same time.

The same false feminist narrative is preached today as it was preached a century ago, namely, that it is a battle between men and women. It was NEVER a battle between men and women, as anti-suffragist Ruth Lyman (Board of Directors of the North End Diet Kitchen and member of the Women's Municipal League of Boston) said:
"The struggle over woman suffrage presents the spectacle of two camps of women arrayed against each other with opposing ideals. Let no one be so simple as to suppose that the issue is one between men and women. It is not a 'woman's rights' question; it is a WHICH woman's rights question. Two types of women are at war, for although both desire the same end—namely, a better world to live in—they differ fundamentally as to the method of attaining it."
-Ruth W. Lyman, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 28, 2024, p. 118-119, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n121/mode/2up]

As aforementioned anti-suffragette Edith Melvin said:
"We have seen the loss of femininity produced by the constant campaigning for suffrage."
-Edith Melvin, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved June 25, 2024, p. 41, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n41/mode/2up]

Ironically, feminism has stripped our nation of femininity, and we now lack the feminine touch in our towns and cities that used to make America a great nation in which to live. Women have slowly turned bitter because they have had to live according to masculine roles, which is abhorrant to them because it contradicts their feminine design.

This also had an mostly unpredicted consequence that, as women adopted the roles of men, masculinity would also fade from society. Over the past century, our culture has become more and more rigidly strict and uncaring because the women that should be women have taken on the roles of men, and because of that, the roles of men have been degraded to the point that young men and women are being taught that men are unnecessary to society.

If we want to restore our nation, we need to put men back into the vital role that forms the pillar of society, and then place women back into the feminine role which can only exist by standing on that pillar. However, to have both, it first requires men and women to understand the crucial and fundamental role of men, and by doing so, it will return women to their crucial and fundamental role as well.



 

A teary-eyed woman uploaded a video to social media and said:
"I just came to a realization. These past few days have been so hard for me because you know how men say women have toxic feminism? And you get to a certain age, no one would want to marry you and no one will love you? I feel like I've gotten to that point because I was so hung onto this feminism thing, and I missed out marriage and children. And now I'm at a point in my life where I'm so bitter. I'm so jealous of people who have marriages because they are so happy... and men are just the best, you know, like right now is when I'm realizing like I can't do without them. And right now I'm late. I don't care if you rich or poor, tall, dark, handsome, ugly, I don't care about that, as long as you're a man and you're breathing. That's the only qualification I need because I'm just so desperate for a husband and there's a lot of pressure around me so, if you can hear me, and propose... I'll marry you immediately. I'll wash your clothes, I'll cook for you, I'll have your children, and I'll be obedient and a submissive wife because that is what you guys want. I'm no longer a feminist guys. I'm sorry."
-18 minutes of women REGRETTING feminism, Mediocre Tutorials and Reviews, Dec 5, 2021, retrieved June 13, 2024, [https://youtu.be/dYg9VTZ0NOA?si=DnjLnhWqpOOM692I&t=366]

Assuming this video upload is honest (and not fake, as many have been), this women appeared to show genuine repentance of her past philosophy. Of course, this is not an overnight change because it takes many years to understand and break free from deeply embedded feminist propaganda, so women like this will always be a problem to some degree, but it was good to see this kind of humility come out of the mouth of a woman who learned the role and value of men, albeit the hard way.

Men are the pillar of the family, and are vitally important to the survival and growth of all members, but sadly, many Christians have been brainwashed into at least some feminist philosophy, even if they are unaware of it. Therefore, we need to go back and read about the creation of mankind by the Lord God in the book of Genesis, to remind us of where we came from, what we are designed to be, and compare it to what we see today.

Let's begin at the creation of woman because this is where things begin to differentiate:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
-Genesis 2:18-20

There are many people who say "helpmeet" as if it is one word, but it is not a single word, it is two words, and in my opinion, this is why so many Christians have a hard time understanding it. The phrase "help meet" contains what appears to be the adjective (help) with a noun (meet), but contextually, it seems to make more sense by reading 'help' as a noun with the adjective description of 'meet', while keeping in mind that 'help' is typically used as a verb, and 'meet' is typically used as an adjective, which means these two words are used in very a unique way in this verse.

It might be easier to understand if we turn it around and call it "meet help," not to alter the Word of God in any way, but a temporary exercise to increase our understanding:

meet (adj): qualified to a use or purpose
help (n): one who gives assistance
(See 'help' & 'meet', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 13, 2024 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The phrase "help meet" is directed at females, which would mean that a woman is a person qualified for the express purpose of assisting a man. If there are women out there who do not like that, I do not care because that is the function of woman's creation, meaning that everything about her body and desire is made for the pleasure and purpose of a man.

One of the primary goals of feminists (if not their greatest desire) is to war against the Christian God of the Bible by destroying the nuclear family, which is a patriarchal system with the father as the head of the household, and the woman in willing submission to the authority over her. Take note ladies: If you reject the role for which you were created, you will ultimately be miserable and unhappy, no matter how much money and worldly lust fulfillment you seek to drown it out.

As we continue in Genesis, we find that the serpent (Satan) deceived the woman (Eve) and got her to eat fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden that God had expressly commanded them not to eat:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
-Genesis 3:6

Notice that she was not being a help meet at this point; rather, she was leading the marriage, even though she was not designed to be the leader. Though some people think Adam was somewhere else in the Garden at the time, that theory does not make Biblical sense because Adam was not deceived (as we will learn in a moment); Adam was standing right next to her, she gave him the forbidden fruit to eat, and he ate it, but that begs the question: Why did Adam eat the fruit if he knew what he was doing?

Within the church, women are not permitted to be leading authorities or teachers. Women can teach in other areas of soceity, like in schools for example, but by the commandments of the Holy Ghost (i.e. God) in Scripture, women are NOT to have teaching or leading authority over the church, and the reason for this goes back to the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
-1 Timothy 2:12-14

Eve was deceived by the serpent, which means she did not have full understanding of what she was doing, meaning that a con man (i.e. the Devil) was leading her around by her emotions, and also, Adam did not step in and tell her "No," to stop her from what she was doing, which was his duty as a man. In other words, the man did not do his job to exercise his authority over her, and the woman did not do her job to seek his permission before doing what she wanted. If we compare this incident to what we see today, it is interesting that many men seem to struggle to put their foot down with their women, telling their wives "No," just as many wives do not seek their husband's permission for what they do, and they have a hard time accepting "No" from the men.

Adam was not deceived as Eve was, which means he had full knowledge of what he was doing, and understood the punishment he would have to suffer for eating it. So again, why did he do it? My understanding of this is taken from the verses that refer to the marriage supper of Christ (Rev 19:9), which uses the analogy of a marriage the Church to Christ as a bride to a bridegroom, or a wife to a husband:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
-Ephesians 5:22-25

Because death was the punishment of eating the fruit (Gen 2:17), Adam knew he would be separated from his wife if she ate the fruit, so it is my belief that Adam elected to eat the fruit to save his wife, so he would not be separated from her. He knew whatever punishment she had, he would have to take as well, but this also meant separation from God, which means that Adam's sin was that he choose the woman OVER God, which was an objectively terrible decision.

Death was the punishment, although it was a death that came gradually over time, since they went from living forever to having a limited life span. The time of their lives was quite long because Adam lived to be 930 years old (Gen 5:5), while today, most men only live about 8-9% of that time.

Now let's take a closer look at additional punishments God gave to mankind:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
-Genesis 3:16-17

The ground was cursed for the sake of man, or in other words, things got tougher for the purpose of making things harder for men, that they would have to suffer, in sweat and blood, to earn their keep, and to this day, every society around the world automatically assumes that men will be the provider for the family.

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-Genesis 3:18-19

As we learn in previous chapters, men taken higher-risk, higher-stress, and more time-consuming work to provide, working himself to death for the sake of his wife and children, which is deserving of honor from the family. Because the man is the strongest unit in the family, and because the woman is weak, he is automatically given the task of protecting that family from danger (and is designed to do so), which means he is the first line of defense, the first to die, in an emergency situation, and that also deserves honor from the family.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
-1 Peter 3:7

If a man is going to work himself to death to provide for his wife, and put his life on the line to defend her from harm (which honors her, as the above Scripture tells us), then he needs to get some sort of benefit for that work, and the benefit is a wife that is in complete subjection to him. However, in the early 21st century, a large portion of American society has abandoned the idea that women should submit to the men around them, which is a rejection of not only male authority, but also a rejection of God's authority.

Furthermore, females are not just the weaker vessel in terms of physical strength, but also in mental capacity. Although some women will be offended by this, I will once again emphasize that I do not care about the whining of women who do not like this fact. Sadly, it is quite difficult in 2024 to find any studies that are willing to admit that men are superior in physicality and intellect because our gynocentric society must worship women in everything, and if they do not, then they will lose funding from the ruling elites.

For example, if we look at the Crossfit Game, which is a competition to determin the fittest person in the world, the fittest women in the world only have about two-thirds of the strength and stamina of the fittest men. Despite this obvious fact, corrupt fake news sources like the Los Angeles Times poses the question, "Which Sex is Stronger?" and gives the deceptive answer, "It Depends on the Test."
(See Robert Kerlan & Ronald B. MacKenzie, "Which Sex Is Stronger? It Depends On the Test," Los Angeles Times, June 23, 1988, retrieved June 14, 2024, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-23-vw-7049-story.html]; See also Crossfit Games, 2024, retrieved June 14, 2024, [https://games.crossfit.com/])

In context of mentality, men are more naturally attuned to facts, logic, and reason before their feelings because men have to prove themselves in society, or in other words, men cannot gain access to resources and relationships without showing they can be productive, and facts help them overcome their struggles, adapt, and build family and culture. However, women are more attuned to their feelings before the facts, which gives them a natural disadvantage of intellect (i.e. problem solving), and because women are born with most of their value (i.e. they do not have to prove their value through skills in order to successfully attract a man to provide for her), therefore, women are more susceptible to manipulation by those who have more wisdom and understanding, just as Eve was manipulated by Satan in the Garden.

Since women are the naturally weaker vessels, both physically and mentally, once she has been manipulated, she can begin to destroy a household from within, and enemies of that household know this is a lot less work, far less risky, and much more effective than trying to manipulate the man. I have seen it attempted in my own life; for example, I once rebuked a pastor for his false doctrine, and another cowardly pastor related to him circumvented me to contact my wife over social media to try and turn her against me, but thankfully, my wife (an ex-feminist) is loyal and obedient to me, and she refused to respond, immediately informed me, and blocked the pastor at my suggestion.
(The name of that pastor is Brady Wisehart, the director of "Jesus Life Ministries" in Fort Wayne, Indiana. [https://www.facebook.com/brady.wisehart])

Women are designed to be nurturers, and although there are many women who reject that nature and become vicious, it is part of their created function to raise children, who are born without the ability to communicate with words, and thus, it is vital that women be in tune with emotions, so she can sense the needs of a child without having to communicate with language. This role of a mother is very important for the health of babies in a household. However, when that emotional function is superimposed into society, it is a DISADVANTAGE because society operates through productivity, and productivity is maintained through facts, logic, and reason, or in other words, emotions focus on self, while society focuses on the whole, and thus, society ignores the emotions of "me" to build up the productivity of "we."

Charity demands that we ignore our feelings to do what is right over what is convenient, and because women are more naturally emotional, they are therefore more self-centered. Because men are more logical, and ignore their feelings to do what is necessary, it means that men are more naturally inclined to charity, and charity builds up both family and society.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Charity" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
-1 Corinthians 8:1

charity (n): the disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow man, and to do them good; love; benvolence; good will
edify (v): to build up; to instruct and improve the mind
(See 'charity' & 'edify', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 14, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
-1 Timothy 1:5

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves:
for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
-1 Peter 4:8

Most men want to make their wives happy, and so they sacrifice their lives to give women a happy life, but if she is not happy, he tends to adapt and adjust to make her happy. Because females are more susceptible to manipulation than men, a woman is more easily discontented, and if she is convinced she is not happy, she will demand more from a man, putting him in a high-stress, low-reward situation where she takes everything and he gets nothing, and when he is broken, the household will be broken, and the children will also be broken.

This is why it is VITALLY important that women are obedient to the Lord God to be obedient to their husbands. The fake news media has done a masterful job of manipulating women over the past century, to convince them to be discontented, and because women are the weaker vessel, they often do not realize when they are being manipulated, and so they need to rely on good men to protect them.

Of course, women have complained that, in a minority of cases, there are physically abusive men who manipulate women, treating their wives horribly in some cases, and I know of these because I have family members who have experienced these things. It is certainly tragic when that happens, however, in each situation I am personally aware of, if the woman had counseled with the wise men of the family before marrying, she never would have married the man who abused her because the men saw it coming long before the marriage commenced, proving once again that women need men.

There will always be evil men in society. The way to counter evil men is to rely on the wisdom and understanding of good men.

One of the major reasons feminism has grown by leaps and bounds over the past century is the funding they have gotten from the Rockefellers, but another major reason is that women in the home have been discontented through radio, television, and social media, and as a result, they have refused to submit to the authority of their husbands. If Eve had listened to the serpent, then turned to the authority over her and asked, "What do you think we should do?" mankind might not be in this mess today.

Despite the lies of the "equality" narrative, feminists are actually attempting to elevate women ABOVE the authority of men, and to accomplish that, they have to belittle and demean the role of men in society. Their campaign has been so effective in the media, when I was in my late teens, I had literally thought to myself, "Why do women need men? Men do not seem to have anything that women cannot provide for themselves." This mentality destroyed me as a young man, and I had no confidence when speaking to women because I viewed myself as worthless in the sense that I was unable to provide anything women needed, therefore convincing myself that I had nothing to contribute to society.

Feminists lie to women to convince them that all the privilege in society is male, and thereby, women collectively convince men that they have "male privilege" (in order to get men to view women as victims, so women get more privileges and benefits), when in reality, no such thing exists. When I was in school, girls got special treatment, and I did not. When I entered the work force, girls got bonuses, and I did not. Then when I started dating, girls got privileges, and I did not. So I was taught not to believe my lying eyes, and to just repeat the narrative that I had access to my super-secret "male privilege" card (which, I guess the postal service lost the mail), to make me believe that I, as a male, was the problem with society, while having to continually fall down the ladder of slave labor so women could benefit.

The truth is that women have always had all the privileges and benefits, no matter which society they are in, and men have to suffer to give women those privileges. Although going through the memories of this extreme disadvantage I had as a young man, I still believe women should have certain privileges in society (which is a Biblically sound position), but what I (and many other men) want, is simply for women to acknowledge the privileges that men have afforded them, and so that they would honor men for the sacrifices they have made for their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters.

What we should NOT do is push for the "equality" narrative that feminists espouse, where men and women are both working outside the home, nor should we tolerate flipped gender roles, in which men stay home and women are outside of the house working for wages or serving in the military. These kinds of ideas come from egalitarianism, which teaches that men and women should be equal in all aspects of society, and it is a foolish philosophy because men and women are NOT equal by any physical measure.

In the end, men do not want women to suffer as men suffer, but rather, they want women to honor men for the sacrifice they make on behalf of women. This is why the Holy Ghost commanded women to revere their husbands:

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 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. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
-Ephesians 5:28-33

reverence (v): fear mingled with respect and esteem
(See 'help' & 'meet', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 18, 2024 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Although watered-down bible versions use words like 'fear' or 'respect' in Ephesians 5:33, the King James Bible uses the word 'reverence', which is a bit different because one can fear a wolf, and one can also respect a police officer, but to reverence them requires a completely different attitude that combines fear, respect, and honor, in the same way one might give reverence to a king. Christ gave Himself for the church, just as the husband gives himself for his wife, and therefore, it follows that as the church gives reverence and glory to Christ, therefore, wives should give reverence and glory to the husband in earthly matters.

When I was boy, I often heard about how much women suffered, how much mothers do, and that women do not get paid for their house work, but I almost never heard anyone in my home, school, or church acknowledge how much my dad suffered, how much work he did, and how much he sacrificed to give us food, clothing, shelter, and much more. There were many problems with my father, from not teaching me any useful trade skills (which he knew how to do, and did not share), to not engaging much with his teen children to share wisdom, and even some physical abuse, but what got ignored was the fact that he worked long hours, sometimes 16-hour days, to make sure we had a comfortable home to grow up in, and it is unbelievably shameful that I had to grow up listening to my mother and sisters bad-mouth my father in his home, which ended up heavily influencing me into feminist philosophy, and that resulted in many years of unnecessary suffering in both career and relationships.

The damage the feminist philosophy does to young men is catastrophic, but furthermore, when young girls learn from their mothers, sisters, school, church buildings, television, magazines, books, and music that they "don't need no man" and that she an "independent girl boss that can do anything a man can do and more," then she rejects the Biblical role of men in her life, which makes society even harder on young men. Even if that girl grows up to get married, she will likely make her husbands life miserable, having to deal with a brawling woman, and likely, she will tell big daddy government to make him pay her all the money a wife and children would normally get, while leaving him, taking the children, separating him from the family, and transforming him from a wage slave to her personal wage slave.

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop,
than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
-Proverbs 21:9

brawling (n): the act of quarreling
quarrel (n): a brawl; a petty fight or scuffle; from its noise and uproar
(See 'brawling' & 'quarrel', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 18, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

A brawling woman is one who wants to fight and argue with the man she is married to at every turn, refusing to submit to his word, and abhors the thought of humbling herself to his authority. She enters into the conundrum of wanting a strong, intelligent, and authoritative husband, while at the same time trying to usurp him by proving she is stronger, smarter, and a better leader than him, which simply does not and cannot work in a marriage because there can only be one leader. This is why the Bible says that men would rather suffer by sleeping out in the heat or cold, than to be in the same household as a woman, and it does not just say a household, but a WIDE house, meaning that even though there are plenty of places he could go to get away from her, it is still not far enough.

The type of wife the Bible is describing in Proverbs 21 cannot be considered to be loving in any sense because love is a selfless sacrifice, meaning that a woman would have to sacrifice getting her way for the sake of the man in authority over her, that she would not cause him trouble (Pro 31:12), and also for the benefit of her children, that she might show them the way a woman should honor a man, which also sets an example for how the church should honor Christ. Therefore, feminism is the opposite of love, because it teaches sexism, or mysandry (i.e. the hatred of men), which means that it is nonsensical to say that a feminist (i.e. a sexist) could be in a loving relationship with a man, in the same way it would be nonsensical for a racist black woman to be in a loving relationship with a white man because love cannot exist when there is an underpinning philosophy of hatred in the woman.

Worse still, because women are weaker in mind and body than men, and the feminist philosophy they adopt demands that they reject the wisdom and protection of men in their lives, many women end up choosing bad men who physically abuse them or take advantage of them in some financial capacity. A woman chooses bad men because she has physical attraction to them, and when the bad men treat her terribly, it increases her animosity towards men in general, but she goes back out and continues to choose bad men, never consulting with good men around her, and though she blames men for all her woes, she remains willingly ignorant that she is the cause of her own demise because in her heart, she hates men, and that is because she retains feminist philosophy.

Sadly, for many women, this cycle will never end until they are forced into real suffering, meaning that men refuse to date them, men refuse to sleep with them, and men refuse to provide for them, while the laws of our government change to stop giving women more privileges than they deserve. (The latter will likely take place once the dollar crashes because the government will not able to afford to exist in its currently oversized capacity.) In other words, women often have to learn the hard way, and once the money runs out, women will be forced to submit to men, will gladly return to their place in the home where fathers and husbands can discipline them to their proper responsibilities, which creates a peaceful and happy home for everyone who lives therein.

In summary, the Biblical role of a man is to be the provider, working as God told Him after the fall (Gen 3:17-19), the protector, as God told men to do the same as Christ for the church (Eph 5:25), and the authority, as God told women that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16). The problem in America today is that feminists are infecting the education of young men, teaching them that they must act and speak like girls, instead of teaching them their Biblical role, and when boys grow up and realize they cannot fulfill their roles as men, they have little motivation to commit to a relationship with a woman in marriage.

Therefore, we see a generation participating in fornication instead of getting married and bearing children. This is why a drastric return to morality from the Holy Bible is necessary for a healthy nation.

As I demonstrated in previous chapters, women are filing for divorce more than 2-to-1 over men (with the vast majority filing a reason of "irreconcilable differences" instead of an actual crime), and that results in a female-dominated society where a boy grows up without seeing much of his father, being raised almost solely by a single mother. During the day, he spends his time with female teachers in the public school system indirectly teaching him how wrong he is to be male, having all his grades based on how female he acts, and the departments of education sit in apathetic confusion, wondering why so many young men join gangs to find a male role model, while they siphon unconstitutional property taxes from us to pay the salaries for their uncaring incompetence.

This is not new information. It has been long-known that fatherless homes are leading an ever-growing number of inner-city boys to join gangs to seek male influence and guidance because they cannot get in the home with their brawling single mothers:
"A June 2013 study, entitled The role of the family in facilitating gang membership, criminality and Exit, noted: 'Those that made the link [between their family situations and their gang involvement], having gang-involved relatives, fatherlessness, domestic violence, and pent-up anger caused by parental neglect or abuse were all seen as having contributed to young people's gang involvement.' The study, that interviewed current and former gang members, their families and key social care and probation officials, also contained testimonies from gang members such as Christopher, who 'talked about how being without a father led him to seek validation from his peers.' Another young man, Kai, 'related his gang involvement to not having a male influence at home,' the joint Catch 22 and London Metropolitan University study said. Researchers found relatives of gang-involved young people also raised the fatherlessness issue, with several affected mothers saying they lost control of their boys as they became teenagers... Practitioners interviewed also told researchers that in some single parent families, children often didn't get adequate supervision, which left them vulnerable [to] gangs. 'They haven't really got that... male in the family, and so the mum's gotta do two roles and she might, you know, work full time and not always have the time with the children,' one local council practitioner told researchers."
-News of the South, "Young Men Seeking Role Models And Fathers In Wrong Places," June 23, 2014, retrieved June 18, 2024, [https://newsofthesouth.com/young-men-seeking-role-models-and-fathers-in-wrong-places/]

Of course, such studies are rejected by feminists because they hate men, and therefore do not care about young men, and also because this study contradicts the laughable feminist narrative of girl-boss CEOs that "don't need no man." A teachers' union got together to discuss the causes for young men joining gangs based on their conversations and experiences with students:
"Some staff were of the opinion that a proportion of young people... were drawn into gangs for a sense of belonging, for acceptance and in some cases for protection — to have their backs covered... The lack of positive role models, the absence of a father in the home combined with too much freedom were seen to result in groups of young people with no respect for their elders... Children were joining gangs between the ages of 12 and 14, although some were recruited as young as nine or 10, the study said. Teachers said gangs had 'clear hierarchical structures', with older members recruiting younger boys to do work such as stashing guns and running drugs."
-Graeme Paton, "Family Breakdown Makes Children Join Gangs," The Telegraph, Apr 17, 2008, retrieved June 19, 2024, [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895844/Family-breakdown-makes-children-join-gangs.html]

The young men and boys are joining these gangs for protection, guidance, belonging, and work, all of which are aspects of life that the father is intimately familiar with, and is also responsible for teaching the children, even if it is just by example. Women do not have the same natural capability to teach these things. Certainly there are some exceptions to the rule, but the fact is that many of these gang members are coming from single-mother homes, which provide strong evidence that, although fathers can fulfill the basic role of mothers after the initial infant stages, mothers are incapable of fulfilling the role of fathers.

That being said, statistics show that children show the best results when both the father and mother remain married and live together in the home. In recent years, new statistical analysis has shown that suicide or attempted-suicide rates in teens is DOUBLED in single-parent homes:
"In recent years, the number of kids living with one parent has continued to rise. Now, a new study shows that children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide... This conclusion came after first identifying some 65,000 children of single-parent homes and 920,000 living with both parents beginning in the mid-1980s, and examining their death rates and hospital admissions throughout the 1990s."
-Sid Kirchheimer, "Absent Parent Doubles Child Suicide Risk," WebMD, Jan 23, 2003, retrieved June 19, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160924083012/webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk#1]

Of course, being a gynocentric mainstream media publication, this website insists on remaining politically "correct" by NOT mentioning that most single-parent homes are run by women, not men. It should be noted that men dying on the job or in the military has been a factor in creating a single-mother household (although this is a minority of cases in comparison to women divorcing their husbands out of selfish spite), but when a child understands that his father died and literally cannot be with him, the suicide rates are not the same as they are with children with mothers who broke up the family in a divorce.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services have discovered that single-mother children end up living in poverty about FIVE TIMES more often than children in married households: (See ASPE, "Information on Poverty and Income Statistics: A Summary of 2012 Current Population Survey Data," U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Sept 12, 2012, retrieved June 19, 2024, [https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/information-poverty-income-statistics-summary-2012-current-population-survey-data-0])

Children without fathers are much more likely to turn to alcohol and drugs to deal with their inner pain:
"[Deane Scott] Beman (1995) [in a study entitled "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse"] found that the absence of the father from the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
-James R. Dudley & Glenn Stone, Fathering At Risk: Helping Nonresidential Fathers, Springer Publishing Company, 2001, p. 62, ISBN: 9780826116178; Dudley is a professor at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, and Stone is an assistant professor at Miami University in Ohio.

If mothers want to decrease the risk of their children suffering to the point that they become addicted to alcohol, smoking, and drugs to try and drown out the pain, then I highly recommend marrying and staying married to (and living with) the biological father. If mothers want to decrease the risk of their children living in poverty, then they need the biological father in the home, who has the incentive of making sure the needs of the family are met, sacrificing his life to provide for his wife and children, while the woman maintains and disciplines the house according to her husband's standards, which (in most cases) results in a healthy family.

Feminists brainwash the world into thinking there is an overarching contempt for women in society, and that men despise and use women at every given opportunity, but the truth is that most men enjoy women. Most men want to defend and care for their wives, children, mothers, sisters, and sweethearts at the cost of their own lives and well-being, but feminists want to destroy that, even though it hurts women in the end, and they want women to be ignorant of that fact so they can continue to claim victimization for extra privileges they did not earn.

Another reason feminists want to destroy the Biblical role of men is because feminists want to destroy the concept of the housewife and mother, and this is because feminists do not like competition. Remember that feminists are competing for jobs that men typical have, like executive positions at companies, but the problem for them is that men have one HUGE advantage over feminists, and that is housewives.

Feminists do not have someone to come home to, who cares for their needs, raises their children, and home cooks their meals for their good health. The housewife is a man's reward for his hard work, which is an extraordinarily valuable asset that drives him forward to suffer through much of the difficulties he faces on the job. Feminists cannot have a housewive like men can, so feminists want to destroy men's advantages to compete against them, but women should keep in mind that you are only an advantage to the man when you submit to his authority WILLINGLY, so both you and your husband can fulfill your roles in harmony.

In the early 21st century, a tiny group of radicals started a "trans-gender" movement which rejects the God-given male and female sexes, and claims that anyone can "identify" as anything they want. They believe that a woman can claim to be a man, and a man can claim to be a woman, or even cross-kind identities, such identifying as a cat, dog, or attack helicopter.

This backwards philosophy has gotten so bad, parents have allowed their children to having irreversible surgeries done to mutilate their genitalia. This is child abuse, and I cannot emphasize enough how much I believe that both the parents and surgeons involved in this process should be prosecuted by the full extent of the law and receive the death penalty, but the main point I want to make is that this idea that one can change his/her genitles is based on evolutionism ideology, which is a retarded worldview that I cover in much greater detail in my seminar called "The Age of the Earth," which you can watch and download for free in the video section at creationliberty.com.

The problem with evolutionism and queer ideology is that they believe their genitalia make them male or female, without considering that, for example, if a man was in war and had his penis and testicles blown off in an explosion, it does not make him less masculine. The penis or vagina is simply an observable tool that indicates someone's biological sex, and so the philosophy of evolutionists and queers is backwards to reality, in that God makes us male or female at conception, and our genitles are simply the tools He gave us to do the job.


God gives men and women roles and functions that are specific to their sex, and then provides for them the tools necessary to fulfill those roles. If one chooses to mutilate him/herself does not change one's biological sex, and the fact that I even need to write that sentence demonstrates how foolish and disgusting our society has become. The rejection of the truth leads people to believe that the only thing that makes someone male or female is a penis or vagina, which is a fallacy of thinking.

Surgical reconstruction is developing more exotic variations with each passing year (despite the very serious medical problems they cause in the long term), and it would not surprise me that in the near future, people will have stupid surgeries to make themselves look like animals, but nothing I have said will change. A man can have special surgery to attach long ears to the top of his head, and have his bones replaced with artificial cyborg parts to make his knees reversed so he can sit on hind legs and jump wherever he goes, but he will never be a rabbit—he will always be a male until the day he dies; a retarded male, but a male nonetheless.

If you are born a male, you will always be a male, no matter what you allow someone to do to your body with a scalpel, but be warned, whatever you allow someone to do to your body with a scapel will almost certainly be irreversible, and one day, you might wake up and realize there is no going back. You can put on make up, wear a wig, and put on a dress, but you will still be a male until the day you die because God ordained you to be a man, to do the work that a man does, to make the decisions a man must make, to protect, to defend, to guide, and so be content with that role to be the best man you can be for the good of those around you.

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
-Philippians 4:11-13

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-Hebrews 13:5

Men, you have a role given to you by God that women CANNOT fulfill, and although you can be masculine without her, she cannot be feminine without you, and families are much worse off if you are not there to guide and discipline them. You are important to the foundation of the family, and the family unit is the core foundation that keeps a nation functioning, so never let a woman tell you that your role as a man is insignificant, unimportant, or evil in any sense because, even if you are not a Christian, you were given this duty by the Lord God.

The ludicrous feminist narrative that "women can do anything a man can do, but better," is no different than the question I used to hear when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, in which women barked, "Where would you men be without us women?." My answer is, "In the Garden of Eden."

My answer is designed to put women in their place because, despite the yowling of feminists, it has been long overdue for American men to put American women in their place, which is in the home to keep it prestine, in the kitchen to prepare home-cooked meals for the health of the family, and birthing babies to raise them into boys and girls which are to be guided by their fathers into adulthood. If men are prevented from doing their job, then children are doomed to fail because the instruction of their fathers is paramount for their wellbeing.

Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father,
and attend to know understanding.
-Proverbs 4:1

Satan told Eve that if she ate the fruit in the Garden, she could be like God. Thus, it was the temptation to be worshipped as a goddess which lured Eve to sin, and to this day, that lust lingers in all women.





 

If you thought feminism was dark so far, we have only scratched the surface by looking at the societal consquences of it. There are things much darker lurking in the waters below the boats filled with bra-burning cultists.

A feminist group in Chicago called the Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, or "WITCH" for short, held protests on public sidewalks where they would cast spells in witchcraft rituals:
"On Feb. 6 [2016], a performance collective named WITCH will be hosting a ritual protest in Logan Square in support of local housing rights. [i.e. socialist policies under the false pretense that housing is a "right"] The organizers describe the event as a 'hexing and protective spell action,' which will include recognizable elements of Witchcraft practice... This group of feminists chose to adopt the image and concept of the Witch to represent female empowerment in a way that was antithetical to socially-constructed, traditional gender roles and that flew, pun intended, in face of the patriarchal expectations."
-Heather Greene, "WITCH Stages Ritual to Protest Housing Inequalities in Chicago," The Wild Hunt: Modern Pagan News & Community, Jan 31, 2016, retrieved June 19, 2024, [https://wildhunt.org/2016/01/witch-uses-ritual-to-protest-housing-inequalities-in-chicago.html]

Sadly, due to almost two centuries of propaganda, most people do not think of witchcraft when they think of feminism, but they should because feminism is the foundational philosophy behind witchcraft. Feminism is not some new ideology created over the past 150 years, but rather, it is a worldview that has promoted the worship of women for thousands of years.

And he caused his children to pass through the fire [i.e. abortion; burning new-born babies alive] in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
-2 Chronicles 33:6

The following is found under 'witch' in the Online Etymology Dictionary:
"Old English wicce 'female magician, sorceress,' in later use especially 'a woman supposed to have dealings with the devil or evil spirits and to be able by their cooperation to perform supernatural acts,' fem. of Old English wicca 'sorcerer, wizard, man who practices witchcraft or magic,' from verb wiccian 'to practice witchcraft' (compare Low German wikken, wicken 'to use witchcraft,' wikker, wicker 'soothsayer')."
-Online Etymology Dictionary, 'witch', retrieved June 20, 2024, [https://www.etymonline.com/word/witch]

Thus, to practice the magic, or craft, of devils is to practice "witchcraft;" also referred to as "Wicca" in many witch covens. Although witches vehemently reject the notion that they practice devil worship, it is devil worship, no matter what name they give to those devils (i.e. the "gods") to whom they pray.

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles [i.e. heathen, pagans] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
-1 Corinthians 10:20

This is why I try to avoid referring to witchcraft as simply "stupid," although it is (i.e. 'stupid' means "foolish"), and that is because the magic of witchcraft does work to a certain extent, as witches assert. The reason it works is because they are calling upon devils to invoke the will of the magic-caster upon others, but those who deal with devils (as witch do) will not inherit the Kingdom of God, or in other words, if they desire to fellowship with devils, witches will be placed forever in hell with the devils they serve.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
-Galatians 5:19-21

Although there are many people today who think there are good witches and bad witches, good wizards and bad wizards, good sorcerers and bad sorcerers, nothing could be further from the truth. Many people who have heard of witchcraft, especially through mediums like video games, have conceptualized white witchcraft as "good" and black witchcraft as "evil," but both are evil; there is no such thing as a "good witch."

The phrase "good witch" was made popular by novelist Lyman Frank Baum in his fantasy book, The Wizard of Oz, which was a book intended to warn people about the military industrial complex and its takeover of America. Dorothy (representing the blissfully ignorant American people) is transported into the land of "Oz" (i.e. oz, short for "ounces," the standard measurement of gold and silver) sets out to "follow the yellow-brick" road (i.e. follow the gold to find the truth), upon which she meets her friends the Scarecrow (representing American farmers with no brain to consider what was taking place around them), the Tin Man (representing the corporate American steel industry that had no heart to understand the needs of the people, and constantly needed infusion of oil to function), and the Cowardly Lion (representing America's cowardice in war at the time).

Baum portrayed the Wicked Witch of the West as the typical evil view of witches, with green skin, and dressed in all black. However, Baum also had a "good witch" by the name of Glenda, and few people know that he designed Glenda after Baum's mother-in-law, Matilda Joslyn Gage, who encouraged him to write the novel.

Gage was a witch who is most well-known for her 1893 book, Woman, Church, and State, which was a compilation of her complaints about the stigma against witches in so-called "Christianized" societies, and sadly, her arguments helped to reshape the American public's perception of witchcraft. For example, she noted a woman publicly accused of witchcraft, and I have highlighted a portion of this quote for a purpose I will get to in a moment:
"[A]s recently as 1867 a woman was publicly accused of witchcraft in the state of Pennsylvania on account of her administering three drops of a black cat's blood to a child as a remedy for the croup. She admitted the fact but denied that witchcraft had anything to do with it, and twenty witnesses were called to prove its success as a remedy. From an early period the belief in metamorphosis by means of magical power was common throughout christendom. St. Augustine relates that 'hostess or innkeepers sometimes put confections into a kind of cheese made by them, and travelers eating thereof, where presently metamorphonsed into laboring beasts, as horses, asses or oxen.'"
-Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, a Historical Account of the Status of Woman Through the Christian Ages, with Reminiscences of the Matriarchate, Truth Seeker Company, New York, 1893, p. 219, retrieved June 20, 2024, [https://archive.org/details/womanchurchstat00gagerich/page/218/mode/2up]

Gage's strategic wording and absence of information can fool many simple-minded people because even though the woman brought up "twenty witnesses," Gage does not elaborate on what those witnesses specifically testified. We have to remember that, in modern efficacy experimentation, placebos (i.e. fake medicine that is nothing more than sugar pills) are found to have a theraputic effect according to the recipient, which means we need to understand what the circumstances were, and what exactly these witnesses testified to be true.

Furthermore, Gage then relates the matter in the same context to "metamorphosis," which is a man or woman changing into another kind of creature, and claiming that "Christians" did those same things. I would not argue that self-proclaimed Christians did those kinds of things, because there is a huge number of people who have claimed to be Christian and done foolish things over the past 2,000 years, but Gage used this metamorphosis example as a counter to the accusations of witchcraft, or in other words, Gage is making the argument that Christians have no argument against witchcraft when they do the very same things in hypocrisy.

The one point I agree with Gage is that many churchgoers are hypocrites for condemning witchcraft while participating in witchcraft rituals, and churchgoers are still doing it. For example, Halloween, Christmas, and Easter mimic the rituals of witches, were founded in pagan lore, were made into pagan/Catholic hybrids by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church, and have been adopted by church buildings and other religious temples worldwide, which should be to their shame.
(Read Christmas: Rejecting Jesus here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
-Philippians 3:17-19

However, this argument is meaningless coming from a hypocrite like Matilda Gage because she plagiarized portions of her statement, and if she did it once, it safe to assume that she has done it MANY times in her books. The original was printed in The Dickinson Press four years earlier, in 1889, and please compare it to the previous quote from Gage, and although both documents could be referring to another book, the summary of the infomation in both the newspaper and Gage's book were so identical, the plagiarism is clearly seen:
"As recently as the year 1867, in Pennsylvania, a woman was publicly accused of witchcraft for administering three drops of a black cat's blood to a child as a remedy for croup. She admitted the fact, but denied that witchcraft had anything to do with it, and twenty witnesses were called to prove its success."
-"Superstitions About Puss Religiously Held By Many," The Dickinson Press, North Dakota, Dec 21, 1889, retrieved June 20, 2024, [https://newspaperarchive.com/dickinson-press-dec-21-1889-p-1/]

Does feminism empower women by glorifying them for stealing from the writings of men?

Gage's book complains about how women were "oppressed" throughout history, and the general impression I got from what I read from her book was that she was upset that women were ever disciplined and punished for crimes and other violations. I am not saying that women have never been mistreated throughout history, nor am I saying that unjust and violent things have been done to them, but far more unjust and violent things have been done to men throughout history, things that most women never have to think about, let alone experience, and my impressions of Gage's book was simply a privileged woman's continual whining about how she should not have to suffer consequences for her bad choices.

Baum's work did have a significant effect on society because a few decades later, popular media started making witchcraft fun and fanciful. By 1950, Disney's Cinderella (which protrays a "good witch" as a fairy godmother) made a huge profit, by the 1960s the TV show Bewitched became very popular, by the 1990s, many highly-watched "good witch" shows appeared, such as Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Charmed, and by the 21st century, Harry Potter became so popular that theme parks have been built around it, meanwhile, many witchcraft movies and shows have been created, more than I could name, and they get more demonic and lewd over the years.

I believe Baum's depiction of the average American as a blissfully ignorant young girl was quite accurate because Americans are blissfully ignorant of witchcraft. They are willingly blind to the fact that witchcraft has always been a blight on every society in which it has existed, and there are good reasons why witches throughout history have faced execution.












-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS BOOK IS CURRENTLY UNDER RENOVATION
I am in the process of writing a 2nd edition to this book,
and it will take some time to complete. Everything below
this point is from the 1st edition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------










Despite the media portrayal that feminism has almost completely enveloped our country, there are many American women out there firmly against feminism for quite a variety of reasons. Lauren Southern, spokeswoman for Rebel Media, said:

"[In feminism,] we do not see equal representation of men's and women's issues. Despite popular belief, feminism is not, in fact, a synonym for equality. I'm not trying to say that men have more issues than women. My point is that both genders have issues, and to argue that feminism is a movement for equality, and doesn't just represent one gender's issues, is quite frankly ridiculous. So this is why I'm not a feminist... I'm not a feminist because I believe I should prove I'm worthy of a job, rather than having it given to me to fill a quota." -Lauren Southern, "Lauren Southern: Why I am not a feminist," Apr 8, 2015, retrieved Oct 25, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=vNErQFmOwq0]

But it's not just about pay and equality reasons. There are many women who have found out the hard way that nothing about the feminist propaganda turned out to be fulfilling, and in fact, the feminist movement was responsible for blinding them to the real desires the Lord God put in their hearts.

This is the testimony of ex-feminist, ex-lesbian, and ex-atheist Brigitte Bedard:
"'I was an atheist for as long as I could remember,' recalled Brigitte Bedard, a young-looking 41-year-old journalist and stay at home mother of six with cropped tousled brown hair and stylish thick-framed glasses. She was addressing a crowd of 200 participants at the Quebec Life Coalition pro-life conference on May 15 in Quebec City... Ms. Bedard grew up at a time when Quebec society was undergoing what historians call the 'Quiet Revolution,' a period of time from the early-sixties to the mid-seventies when Quebec society shed its Christian heritage and adopted secular values. 'I was born in 1968 — talk about bad luck,' she joked. Bedard had a typical childhood in a non-religious household, and went to the notoriously leftist Université du Québec à Montréal, where she studied literature, eventually graduating with an MA. 'I filled my mind with all the radical feminist literature — I drank it all up,' she said.
She began a series of heterosexual relationships, which all ended badly. 'Prodded along by what I was reading, I began thinking that since all my heterosexual relationships were failures, that I might be a lesbian.' And in fact she dove into the lesbian lifestyle, and admitted that she revelled in it for quite some time. 'It was actually a very good time, in a way, being with a big gang of girls, tearing up the town, chain-smoking like there was no tomorrow. I was also very sexually active.' Despite the fun and the excitement of the lifestyle, she felt broken, she recalls. 'I was a mental wreck. I just felt that I was spinning out of control, that I was keeping appearances but I was miserable inside.' Things came to a head when, inexplicably, she broke into tears one night at 3 a.m. and began shouting in her empty apartment in a trendy district of Montreal, imploring God to 'take her away.' 'Here I was, a militant feminist lesbian atheist lying on my apartment floor crying my head off imploring God. I wasn't in my right mind, but I was desperate for help.'
She began seeking help, meandering in and out of countless 12-step type programs, in the hopes of finding some kind of solution for her anxiety and 'messed-up life.' To make matters worse, she had just quit smoking: 'I was suddenly forced to face life in the raw, without any protection or buffer'... [After some angry lashing out at people, she broke down and admitted the truth.] She now works as an independent journalist and happily-married stay-at-home mother of six. Life for her now is not all peaches and cream, however... Remarking on the differences between her life now and in her lesbian days, she quipped: 'Living with a man is definitely a pain, but living with a woman all the time was a living hell.'"
-Georges Buscemi, "Brigitte Bedard: Ex-lesbian, feminist and atheist now a stay at home mom of six tells her story," Life Site News, May 20, 2010, retrieved Oct 12, 2016, [valuesvoternews.com/2010/07/brigitte-bedard-ex-lesbian-feminist-and.html

So we can take away from this that Brigitte's true desire was exactly what the Bible says her true desire would be, that is, to be a wife and mother. Her rage and anger was really because everything she was living was a lie, and I find it very sad that all the other raging feminists are acting out that same unjustified aggression against all men in a very similar manner.

Sara Giromini, former Italian feminist who was known in her feminist days as "Sara Winter," has come forward publically and denounced feminism. She participated in topless protests, made hateful videos, and wrote hateful articles, until 2015, she came forward with the truth and asked for forgiveness:
"'Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement, so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality,' she says in a Dec. 15 YouTube video titled 'I ask Christians [i.e. Catholics] for forgiveness for feminist protest... I saw the feminist movement cover up for pedophiles,' Giromini warned. 'I saw the feminist movement persecute women... I am a witness to the fact that today in the feminist movement women are not of any importance but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred that the feminist sect cannot allow to die.'"
-Douglas Ernst, "Ex-Feminist Apologizes to Christians, Shocked by Forgiveness," World Net Daily, Dec 31, 2015, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [wnd.com/2015/12/ex-feminist-apologizes-to-christians-shocked-at-forgiveness]

It's true that feminist organizations heavily encourage homosexual activity, especially in women, because it's considered "rebellious." Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, whose authored works demonstrates her deranged obsession with sex, said:
"When a woman reaches climax with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."
-Sheila Jeffreys, quoted by Urban Dictionary, "Feminism," retrieved Aug 25, 2016, [urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism&defid=3892213]

In case you may not have understood this, Jeffreys is claiming that women should reject any sexual pleasure they encounter with their husbands, otherwise they are rewarding men's so-called "oppression of women." The serious problem with this quote is that it depicts sex as just some fun thing people do on a Saturday night, instead of observing it as the process from which children are born; or in other words, instead of taking the worldview of the Lord God being the creator of sex and making the production of children a pleasurable experience (i.e. "be fruitful and multiply" -Gen 1:22), Jeffreys writes this quote as a fornicator and adulterer who hates the law of God and the restrictions He puts on sexual intercourse.

I was unable to find the original sources for Jeffreys' quote (and normally, I wouldn't include it), but I have little doubt she did indeed write/say this. Just look at the titles to the books she's famous for writing:

Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade

The feminist movement is jam packed full of lesbians. It draws them in because it is the only place they can go to justify their wicked lifestyles, using other sin-filled women to pat each other on the backs until they feel better about their choices. Romans 1 says:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
-Romans 1:26-27

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mind back before I was a Christian (I was a teenager back then), and his sister decided to become a lesbian, so we went through what little of the Bible we knew to try to find any Scripture against lesbianism. We were unable to find it in our ignorance, but today, I would have a proper answer for it because Romans 1 condemns them, and when it says they'll receive "recompence of the error which was meet," it means they're going to suffer the consequences of their actions; namely:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:32

If these lesbians don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, death in hell awaits, on top of the cursed life they build for themselves, but they love to surround themselves with those who do the same wicked deeds, as Sara Winter said, "Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement." These women will always tell you to your face that they're happy and content, but it is a lie because they will NEVER be happy or content until they come to repentance in a broken state.

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
-Proverbs 29:18

He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso trusteth in the LORD, happy is he.
-Proverbs 16:20

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-Hebrews 13:4-5

Christians ought not to be afraid of these hateful, warmongering lesbians, who have no love of the truth, no matter how much power and influence they gain from the state and the media.

So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
-Hebrews 13:6

In addition to Sara Winter's testimony of pedophilia being protected from within the feminist movement, I also found some interesting articles about Sweden's feminist problem. About 200 men decided to take matters into their own hands and attacked a group of Arab refugees who were known rapists, but feminists began to protest the white men who came to their rescue, meaning that they would rather be raped by foreign visitors than to have their own Swedish men come to save them. (Or in other words, they don't want to be grateful to men in any way.)
(See Barritrad, "Swedish feminists: 'Please don’t protect us if we get raped by immigrants'," Feb 3, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [barritrad.com/swedish-feminists-please-dont-protect-us-get-raped-immigrants]; See also Liam Deacon, "Feminist Swedish Politicians Defends Migrant Rapists, 'Worse' When Western Men Do It,' July 5, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [http://bit.ly/29jV7LP])

Also, witchcraft, abomination in the eyes of the Lord God that is gaining ever-growing popularity in modern American culture, has become a feminist icon:
"Witches are having a cultural moment... the magical woman is seeing a resurgence in pop culture — and also gaining new respect as an enduring feminist symbol... 'Young women in particular are looking for an archetype outside the tired virgin/whore binary that we're offered, and the witch can do just that,' [Kristen] Korvette [scholar of witchcraft] said. According to Pam Grossman, a curator, writer and teacher of magical practice and history, the witch is self-possessed and in control in a way that resonates with modern women. She explained: 'Traditionally female archetypes get power from other people. Think about things like the mother, the queen, the daughter — these are all lovely archetypes for women, and yet they’re deriving their power from their relation to other people, whereas the witch, she has power unto herself.'"
-Ryan Buxton, "Why The Witch Is The Ultimate Feminist Icon," Huffington Post, Oct 8, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [huffingtonpost.com/entry/witches-are-feminist-icons_us_5616c9dfe4b0dbb8000dad40]

Feminist groups consist of many more lesbians and witches than most people are aware of, and certainly there are a number of women in these organizations who are casting Satanic witchcraft magic spells over their meetings, rallies, and protests. This has already started to be done publically, as some feminist witches protested in Chicago with a live spell-casting demonstration on the city sidewalk: "On Feb. 6 [2016], a performance collective named WITCH [i.e. W.I.T.C.H. - Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, an actual witch coven] will be hosting a ritual protest in Logan Square in support of local housing rights. [i.e. communist laws under the false pretense that housing is a natural born "right"] The organizers describe the event as a 'hexing and protective spell action,' which will include recognizable elements of Witchcraft practice... This group of feminists chose to adopt the image and concept of the Witch to represent female empowerment in a way that was antithetical to socially-constructed, traditional gender roles and that flew, pun intended, in face of the patriarchal expectations."
-Heather Greene, "WITCH Stages Ritual to Protest Housing Inequalities in Chicago," The Wild Hunt: Modern Pagan News & Community, Jan 31, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [wildhunt.org/2016/01/witch-uses-ritual-to-protest-housing-inequalities-in-chicago.html]

The WITCH group rallied together witches online from all over the country to continually cast spells on Donald Trump, who has become a scapegoat for feminism. One of the witches in Salem, Massachusetts commented on the effort:
"In general, people who are witchcraft practitioners tend to be on the more liberal side of the spectrum... It is a female-centric religious practice for women who are passionately feministic."
-Ana (refused to give her last name), quoted by Steve Annear, "Witches are apparently casting a spell on Donald Trump," Boston Globe, Feb 24, 2017, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [http://bit.ly/2mmDSQI]

Witches in feminist protests are not uncommon, and "spiritual feminists" in what's known as the "womanspirit movement" or the "goddess movement" have appeared in well-known protests to bring their witchcraft to the mix:
"The womanspirit movement has been labeled ahistorical and apolitical by materialist feminists. Spiritual feminists counter that religion influences politics and that creating a new religion is a political act. Spiritual feminists have been involved in many political protests, including those against the military at Greenham Common, Great Britain; against the nuclear power plant in Diablo Canyon, California; and for women's reproductive choice."
-Cheris Kramarae & Dale Spender, Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge, Routledge, 2004, p. 2051, ISBN: 9781135963156"

The so-called "women's reproductive choice," more commonly known as abortion, or more simply put as CHILD MURDER, is an issue also closely related to witchcraft in the U.S. There are abortion clinics that have hidden rooms with witchcraft altars adjacent to the surgical room so that all the abortions can be used as human sacrifices, but this is a topic I would like to save for another article specifically on abortion in the future. (I'll try to remember to add a link here to that article when I get it completed.)

This kind of protest will only become more popular over time because witchcraft is foundational to feminism, and groups always operate stronger as a cultic unit than a random gathering. The following practicing witch claims that witchcraft is inherently connected to feminism, meaning that if you embrace feminism, you embrace witchcraft:
"I am a witch. I spend a lot of my time scraping candle wax off my kitchen table, making my own incense, and praying to Gods and Goddesses most of the world has already forgotten. Witchcraft means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To me, witchcraft is an amazing tool that I’ve used to bridge the gap between religion and politics – to make my everyday practice something that not only could be feminist, but is inherently so. While many folks today seem to link religion (most often Christianity) with conservatism, my religious practices, and specifically my practice of the craft, is something that brings me even closer to my feminism and anti-capitalist ideologies."
-Kris Nelson,, "3 Exciting Ways Witchcraft and Feminism Intersect," Everyday Feminism Magazine, Nov 19, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/witchcraft-and-feminism]

Do you really believe it's a coincidence that the strong tie between witchcraft and feminism has been kept out of the media? Witchcraft is spreading like wildfire thanks to feminism (among other things), because the two concepts go hand in glove:
"'I'm really a witch,' rapper Azealia Banks quipped last January, shortly before all hell broke loose on her Twitter account... It came out in the middle of a run about black Americans and their relationship to Christianity [i.e. Catholicism]: 'I wonder if most of the black American Christians in the US know WHY they are Christian. [i.e. She's connecting Catholicism to Christianity.] I wonder if they even consider for a SECOND that before their ancestors came to the Americas that they may have believed in something ELSE.' Not uncontroversial, but not wrong. Banks then suddenly took a hard left into what seemed like either a joke, or an unexpected embrace of Harry Potter fan fiction. She went on: 'But really, it’s all about magic. The most magical people are the ones who have to deal with oppression, because the non-magical are jealous. That’s why Jews and Blacks have been persecuted over and over again throughout history. Because they have the most magic ... all I’m trying to say is that black people are naturally born SEERS, DIVINERS, WITCHES AND WIZARDS. we have REAL supernatural powers, and the sooner we ALL learn to cultivate them and access them, the sooner we can REALLY fix s**t.' Then she joked that racism might end a lot sooner if black people could make their enemies sicken and die with a thought,"
-Sady Doyle, "Season of the witch: why young women are flocking to the ancient craft," The Guardian, Feb 24, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/witch-symbol-feminist-power-azealia-banks]

The author to this U.K. article goes on to talk about an interview she did with a witch who calls herself "Starhawk." Long time readers of our ministry's publications may remember that name from our article "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell," in which Starhawk (whose real name is Miriam Simos) wrote an article telling the story of how C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia made her a witch. Starhawk was quoted in The Guardian concerning the connection between feminism and Wicca.
(Read "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell - C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

"'I’ve been involved with this resurgence of interest in spirituality since the 1960s,' Starhawk told me during a phone conversation. 'It's like suddenly the world opened up and people realized there wasn't just Judaism, Christianity, Islam. There was a whole world of eastern religions and traditions. In the 1970s, with the resurgence of the feminist movement, a lot of us began to investigate a feminist spirituality and the goddess traditions of Europe and the Middle East.' Wicca, with its focus on a goddess (rather than a male god – though it has those too) and its relatively open approach to creating canon, was a natural fit for many feminist women interested in writing their own spiritual script."
-Sady Doyle, "Season of the witch: why young women are flocking to the ancient craft," The Guardian, Feb 24, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/witch-symbol-feminist-power-azealia-banks]

There's a "Legacy of the Witch" festival of feminists that meets annually, hosted by "slutist.com," in which they participate in all sorts of sick, twisted traditions, music, and shows. Their advertising posters and images are so explicit, I can't publish them here.
(See "Legacy of the Witch: A Slutist Feminist Festival," slutist.com, Nov 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [slutist.com/legacy-of-the-witch-a-slutist-feminist-festival])

With all that in mind, let's continue to look at Ex-feminist Kim Keller's story about being a defiant feminist since she was a young girl, but after the death of her friend, she was shaken out of her delusion:
"Over time, parts of my angry feminism dropped away. Both female and male mentors helped me launch my career. I married a guy who loved me for my outspokenness and didn’t want me to be passive or meek. I gave birth to a daughter and realized no career was worth sacrificing her well-being. I recognized there was no great conspiracy to keep me down based on my gender. The only conspiracy was the feminist myth that females were victims, and I refused to be a victim... My feminist beliefs changed the most when my son was born and I recognized the bigotry he would face solely because of his gender. His boy-ness is continually stifled by societal efforts to make him more feminine – no rough housing, stay in your seat, and don’t play games with good guys and bad guys. While every child is unique, boys tend to be louder, more active and more physical than their female peers. It’s not a bad thing; it’s just different... I am deeply saddened that much of today’s 'feminism' focuses on sexuality over intelligence and talent, and I fight to protect my daughter, son and their peers from the ramifications of that belief system."
-Kim Keller, "Confessions of a former feminist," Roadkill Goldfish, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [roadkillgoldfish.com/confessions-of-a-former-feminist]

Hopefully, this will help Christians to better understand what Paul said at the end of 1 Timothy 2:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
-1 Timothy 2:14-15

First of all, many people have misunderstood the context of Scripture by wrongly thinking that every instance of the word "save" (or "saved") is talking about the saving of the soul. The Bible does talk about the saving of the soul, but also the saving of food (Gen 14:24), the saving from rape (Deu 22:27), and the saving of life (Jos 2:13). Here, the Bible is saying that a woman, though the process of having a child, will be saved from deception of the Devil, IF she follows the commandments of God in sobriety, because there are still many women out there who have had children and are still deceived because they have remained in iniquity.

I think it's fascinating how the Word of God foreknew this feminism to be a problem, and that He would point out that women's desire (i.e. their pre-programming) is to have children and be help meets. Feminism teaches women that having children is abhorrent, encouraging abortions all the time, saying that killing your babies is a blessing that will make you an "independent woman," but consider what the Lord Jesus Christ said:

But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
-Luke 23:28-29

Many feminists today are learning the hard way what the Bible has taught for thousands of years, while screaming lies at the top of their lungs that women are "liberated" feminism. Remember, the louder someone gets with their argument, typically, the less confident they are in what they're saying. There is no liberty without the Lord Jesus Christ, and there is a vail that blinds them to the truth.

Nevertheless when it [the blinded heart] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
-2 Corinthians 3:16-17

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:31-32

These feminists will not know freedom and peace until they know the truth, and the truth is that they are fallen creatures, just as all mankind is fallen. They need to know they're lost before they can be saved.
(Read "How to Gain Salvation" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Sadder still, all the ex-feminists I've just mentioned have claimed to have turned to "Christianity," but they're actually referring to the Catholic Church, which is paganism that is not of God. They've put their hopes in a false system that will lead them and their families to hell. I pray that they will be saved out of that false system and know the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ before it's too late.
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There's a reason feminists who hate men also hate God, and that's because God is an authority figure over us. Feminists hate any masculine role over them because they hate the role they were pre-programmed with, and thus, they hate the Almighty God and hate anyone who is associated with Him.

This female author talks about her experiences growing up as a feminist, but she is now an ex-feminist, working to expose the feminism movement. She describes the history and battles feminist have fought, and says:
"It seems to me that what many women want and expect from society is not equality, but rather a handicap. Having a handicap in life is not the same thing as having equality, and it makes the men who are suffering slights at our expense, resent us for it. It's counter-intuitive."
-Username CrazyBuster Micksbabe, "Confessions of a Former Feminist," Shrink 4 Men, Sept 1, 2011, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [shrink4men.com/2011/09/01/confessions-of-a-former-feminist]

By counter-intuitive, she means that it's nonsensical in that when feminists expect hand-outs, they have to come from someone's pocket, and if feminists won't pay for it themselves, it's likely coming out of men's pockets. Even the very God they hate is the God who gave them life, mouths to speak, and hearing they refuse to use. Thus, she's saying that these women expect men to pay for their imagined feminist woes, and at the same time, these women also expect men not to resent them for it, which no different than slavery.

Rebecca Walker is the daughter of Alice Walker (famous feminist who wrote The Color Purple), and although Alice preached that motherhood was a form of slavery, Rebecca is now a mother and writes against the feminism her mother promoted. Rebecca now enjoys being a mother, and despite the fact that her own mother (Alice) disowned her, she wrote a book called Baby Love: Choosing Motherhood After A Lifetime Of Ambivalence, which gives her testimony about how her mother mostly ignored her altogether:
"But, while she [Alice] has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel. My mother would always do what she wanted - for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?"
-Rebecca Walker, "How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart," Daily Mail, May 23, 2008, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [http://dailym.ai/1eIgcxr]

SELFISH is the key word there, and I would add in BIGOTRY (i.e. intolerant of anyone holding a different opinion) as well since Alice completely disowned her daughter for wanting to be a wife and mother. Again, these feminists are not creating opportunities; they're trying to destroy the family unit for the sake of their communist lusts.





 

It is typical in my books that I leave a final chapter for my thoughts and experiences, which is not to say that I have not provided many instances of those throughout this book, but this is a section where I can provide my conclusions after many years of research, writing, and speaking on this subject. When I started to write this chapter, my first thought was to emphasize the word 'duty'.

duty (n): something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation
(See 'duty', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Parents have a duty to their children, as children grow up to have a duty to their parents. Employees have duties. Statesmen have duties. Every role has a duty that coincides with it, and although feminists have lied to us, convincing us that male and female are "classes," they are not (because both men and women exist in a wide spectrum of societal classes); rather, male and female are roles, and those roles come with certain duties that are unique to each role.

In chapter eight, I quoted from anti-suffragette Ruth Lyman, and I would like to do so again because she stated this so eloquently:
"To constrast the opposing ideals of the two groups of women, let me quote from what a great Frenchmen said in the time of the French Revolution: 'You have written upon the monuments of your city the words Liberty—Fraternity—Equality. Above Liberty write Duty; above Fraternity write Humility; above Equality write Service; above the immemorial creed of your Rights inscribe the divine creed of your Duties.' I truly believe that women who, perceiving present duties imperfectly performed, refuse to take up the cry for more rights, are following the more Christ-like ideal. I do not think that twentieth century American women have outgrown His peerless example, which urges them to be faithful first over a few things as He commanded. God made us women; and if we are told that women suffer more than men in peace and war, let us answer, 'Very likely—Christ Himself found His cross heavy—let us bear the cross and crown of womanhood in His name."
-Ruth W. Lyman, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved July 2, 2024, p. 122, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n125/mode/2up]

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
-Luke 16:10-12

This is directed at disciples of Christ, not to the unsaved of the world. Jesus is prompting us to consider that if we cannot be trusted to faithfully oversee riches of this world, to distribute and invest in those things of charity and kindness to others, which exhibit the goodness of God, then there is no reason we would should be trusted with the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is not to say that we must work to gain entrance to Heaven, because the Scriptures clearly teach us that salvation is by grace through repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of sin) and faith in Christ, and that grace is a free, unmerited gift that is not earned by works.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

The saving grace of Jesus Christ is the foundation of our conversion unto Him. Therefore, if we have been born again in Him by the power of Holy Ghost, then we are the children of God, and as the children of God, we should reflect the characteristics and work-ethic of our Father in Heaven, which means that if someone who claims to be in Christ cannot be trusted with a little responsibility, it provides evidence that they are not of Christ because Christ's children will be responsible little or much, no matter the circumstance or temptation.

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
-Philippians 4:11-13

There are still some women today who understand this concept, and are faithful to their duty as women, and do the best they can with their time and resources, as God has alotted to them. However, many women still do not understand roles and duty, for if they did, they would understand that the life's work of a woman is preferable to the miserable existence of a man's work.

The following is from an essay by anti-suffragette Anna Davis, who sat on the board of many charity clubs for education:
"So, in claiming for women the right to take a part in a the man's half of life, the suffragists, I think, lose sight of what the woman's half is. In urging that they must have a hand in law-making and government and public life generally, they do not see that woman's peculiar work is pretty independent of laws and of government, is rather in private life. For it is just where the law cannot reach that woman is supreme. It is just in the finer, more personal and intimate relationships of life, which government cannot include, that woman finds her work waiting for her, which she alone can do—what Octavia Hill calls 'the out-of-sight, silent work.'
That woman is today neglecting this, her own part of the world's work, I think is everywhere apparent. Surely we do not need more laws; what we do need is more of the spirit which shall make people want to obey the laws which we have. What else does it mean when we say we cannot enforce those laws? The suffragists are clamoring for more laws, for more of the man-element of society; the anti-suffragists feel that it is the inner life and character the mother's work, which everwhere needs strengthening. Settlement workers, doctors, ministers, and police commissioners, are beginning to feel this, too. They are telling us that in their work they find that no laws and no institutions can take the place of home teaching and influence with young people. The outer restraint and penalty are little effective unless they are met by the inner desire to do right."
-Anna H. Davis, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved July 2, 2024, p. 126, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n105/mode/2up]

Men have built a society of laws to punish evildoers, and discipline those who lack it. These are necessary disciplines because mankind is inherently sinful, and it is the duty of men to enforce punishment for wrongdoing on those who will not restrain themselves. However, what is better than teaching young men and women the punishments for wrongdoing is to teach them to do good, and thus, Anna rightly concludes that "the outer restraint and penalty are little effective unless they are met by the inner desire to do right."



To give a personal example, I once dated a (self-proclaimed "Christian") girl for a very short amount of time, and she invited me to drive up to New York to meet her parents. On the way there, I noticed she kept speeding up without realizing how fast she was going (she was sometimes going 90mph on a 70mph road), I pointed out to her to watch her speed, but after the fourth time, I got tired of doing it, so I just let her suffer the consequences. She got pulled over by a police officer about 30 minutes later, and ended up with her first speeding ticket of $150. When we arrived at her parents' house, she confessed the ticket, but then told them, "Well, Chris was talking to me and I got distracted," in effort to cover any personal responsibility. The fact was that she threw me under the bus to save herself, and I didn't say anything; I just took the blame so she wouldn't have to, but men need to understand that women like this have very low moral foundation and are very dangerous to a marriage, and thankfully, I didn't date her much longer afterwards (for numerous other reasons, lying being one of them). This is what I mean when I say that feminists have trained women to point the finger outward instead of inward.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Feminists are largely an outcry of single mothers, or girls who have grown up in a single-mother homes, and that outcry is aimed at men, willing more to throw men under the bus so they won't have to suffer any consequences for their actions. The grand majority of feminists typically fall into two categories on that point:

She chose to have children with a wonderful man, and she drove him away with her horrible personality, attitude, and physique. She chose to have children with a terrible man, and she ignored all the warning signs that he would be terrible.

Either way, the feminist then comes to the conclusion that "all men are evil" based on the willingly ignorant denial of responsibility for personal choices. In America, we have no laws that force women to have sex with someone, and we have no laws that force women to marry someone, so that means she made a choice, and she wants to blame someone else for her decisions.

Certainly, there are some men out there who are just set on leaving their wives out of their own selfishness, and I acknowledge that. However, the problem is that almost every woman I talk to will claim to be in that small percentage, or in other words, almost all women I meet claim nothing was their fault or they couldn't have done anything better. When they do that, what they're really saying is: "When it concerns a marriage, it is impossible for women to do wrong," that is, men have 200% responsibility, 100% of their own and 100% of their spouse, but women have 0% responsibility.

Concerning female rape victims, one thing that is often said to them to help them "feel better" is, "There was nothing you could have done." Let me make this clear: You should NEVER say that to a rape victim because what that communicates to her is that no matter what she does, no matter what precautions she takes, if a man decides to rape her, there's nothing she can do to stop it, and she'll end up living her life in a constant state of fear. Sadly, this same type of phrasing is the attitude women hold concerning divorce.

As we saw earlier, women file for divorce 2 to 1 over men, so who is it that really wants the marriage to end? Obviously, the women want it to end more than men. How can women blame men for failed marriages when women more often initiate the separation of the family? (In the Bible, women were not permitted to write bills of divorce; men were the ones with the responsibility to make that decision. Deu 24:1, Mark 10:4)

To say to a divorced woman, "There was nothing you could have done," is to say to her, "Men are at fault for everything, so blame them and take no responsibility." If a wife really has a desire to please her husband and turn their marriage around, there are many things she can do. Remember the example I gave earlier about a free-market restaurant? I explained how business owners think when trying to get more people to spend money at their restaurant, and for a business owner to say, "There's nothing I could have done," is to say that everything is the customer's fault, which doesn't make any sense.

If restaurant owners wants to have satisfied customers desire to spend money in their restaurant, then they need to examine their business model, and likewise, women who want to have satisfied husbands desire to spend money on their wives, home, and children, then they (ladies) need to examine their business model. Although the Bible has commandments for men and women to stay married, at the same time, there are commandments for husbands to love their wives, and wives to reverence their husbands, so effort needs to be made by both parties to maintain a good marriage. Just as customers in a nice restaurant are treated like royalty, husbands who are treated like royalty in their home will want to keep coming back, and I'd like to make some suggestions for stay-at-home wives and mothers, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Improve your cooking. Take some cooking classes or looking up Youtube videos that teach recipes and cooking techniques, increasing the quality of the meals in your home to the point that your husband says to his co-workers, "Sorry guys, I can't hang out with you tonight, my wife's making my favorite." Make your cooking so good, his friends and neighbors want to be in your home as much as he does, and healthy meals that will improve his overall well-being. Improve your personality and demeanor. Work hard to be more friendly, gentle, and non-combative with your husband. Let him know how wonderful he is on a regular basis, and find small ways to let him know your appreciation for his hard work. (Hint: Good food works wonders.) Improve your appearance. Don't walk around the house in your pajamas or sweat pants all the time. Treat your home like a place of business by wearing a nice dress or outfit for him, and ask his opinion about how you look. Ask him if there's anything about your appearance he would like you to improve, and be prepared to take his criticisms into consideration without being upset so he knows that his thoughts and feelings are welcomed by his wife in his home. Although the Bible tells us that beauty, in the end, is vain, it doesn't say that beauty is sin, especially for your husband. Improve your physique. Start jogging for 20 minutes a day, or get a gym membership and start working out 2 or 3 times a week. Get serious about losing weight and toning up to look pleasing in the eyes of your husband. (Warning: This may lead to more children.) Improve your skills in the bedroom. Sadly, there are many men, including Christian men, who are turning to pornography, even though the Bible strictly says that's sin/fornication (Mat 5:28), and though it is men's responsibility to stay Biblically founded in their own actions, it's no reason for women to think they can't do something about it. Find out what your husband likes, and give it to him (within Biblical reasoning). Get creative, and be so skillful in the bedroom, he would never want to touch a computer for the rest of his life. (i.e. Get motivated!) Be more open. Ask your husband his opinion on the changes you're making, and find out if he's pleased with you. Let him know you're doing these things for his pleasure and enjoyment, and that if he has any critiques, that he is welcome to voice them, and let him know he will be loved, listened to, and honored for voicing his thoughts and feelings about his wife, home, and children. (Again, it's important not to get upset by the criticisms because crying and/or running out of the room gives him a negative response that leads him to believe he can't share his thoughts, opinions, and feelings with his wife.)

I'm not saying that all women need to do all these things on this list, and of course there are some women who have injuries, or are limited due to old age. On top of that there are some households that have abusive, ungodly men who do wrong, and I'm glad that shelters are very widespread and available to help women and children in those situations, but we also have to recognize the plague of feminism, and how it is ruining families via the wife and mother. I'm simply saying that women need to stop acting like victims, and start thinking about what they CAN do, not what they can't do. Christian wives: Since you're in the marriage for life, that means whether your household is a home or a prison depends on you.

Anti-suffragette Anne Gulick wrote that it was vital that a wife and mother must have no other duties that could come before her home:
"Some one said recently: 'A man must have a place to go from and to come to.' In order to make him continue to want to go from and come to his home, there must be something there to make him look forward to the home-coming with pleasure as the reward of his labor. If this home is kept by a woman who cannot be at home often when most needed, who labors under the excitement of the political campaign, how long is he going to look forward to his home-coming?... woman must specialize in the home... To my mind the advantages of a properly conducted home life far outweigh the advantages of any institution, no matter how good. That I am not alone in this opinion is witnessed by the fact that the trustees of the best orphan asylums are making every effort to diminish the number of children in their institutions and to place the children in homes. They have learned that even a poorly conducted home is better than a well conducted asylum, and that they have no right to deprive children of the benefits of family life."
-Anne H. Gulick, quoted by Earnest Bernbaum, Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women, 1916, retrieved July 2, 2024, p. 130-132, [https://archive.org/details/antisuffrageess00berngoog/page/n133/mode/2up]

Ladies, these are your great-grandmothers speaking. They had a good understanding, and if you want to understand your duty as a woman, look first to the Scriptures, then consider the writings of these women who spent much of their time caring for the home, and participating in organizations that did charitable work for the community.



And ladies, you don't have to do it alone; for Christian women specifically, you could find other women, young and old, in your church who want to do these things for their husbands to improve their homes, and start up a group in your church called "The Better Wives Club," in which you can all work together to be the best wives you can be, and inspire other young women and girls to do the same. Sadly, most Christian women will not do things like this because, first of all, they don't know they've adopted feminist philosophy, and second, they believe that because men are commanded not to lust after any other woman except his wife, that they don't need to do anything to maintain his interest in her and their household.

That kind of feminist folly can ruin your marriage very quickly. Ladies just think about it for a moment; what if men decided they don't need to do anything to maintain their household, and they just stopped providing income, stopped protecting the family when an intruder enters, and stopped caring about his authority by just putting his nose in a TV all day long?

Seeking the attention of men is something young girls do instinctively, but when they're married, for some strange reason, that stops. Mothers often don't teach their daughters that they ought to maintain that to a certain degree, let alone teaching them what it takes to accomplish it. Because feminism enters the home and the father is not there, the young girls also don't learn the skills they need to discern between the good loving men they're looking for, and evil abusive men they don't want.

Young girls tend to want to learn to do things that will make them more attractive to boys, and gain the attention of boys, so the young girls can have their pick of the best man they can find. Girls want to learn to put on make-up, want to train themselves to be fit and flexible, like to learn how to do their hair up in various ways, etc. The catch-22 of this is that by becoming more attractive to men, she will not only attract the men she's looking for, she will also attract men she is NOT looking for, and because she's not a man that can fully understand men, one of the greatest defenses a young girl has is her father, who can impart to her the knowledge of how to discern between the good and bad men.

This fatherless (i.e. "I don't need a man") household typically results in no good advice and wisdom coming from the single mother because she projects her hatred and fear of men onto her daughters AND her sons, which ruins them both. I emphasize sons because that is an issue rarely discussed in U.S. society today. It's no wonder that boys are being thrown in the garbage, and the struggles of men are being ignored, since our ever-increasing population of single mothers are teaching their children (by their words and actions) that men are disposable, and if a U.S. child has the misfortune of being born a boy, he is being taught from day one that he needs to act like a girl.

It's important to note that the Bible calls this "effeminate," (a word which has been removed from most new-age bible versions) meaning men that are acting like women. Christians, washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ, are supposed to cleanse and sanctify themselves from such devilish philosophy:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Bible so seriously condemns men acting like women, the Lord God says that those who act such way are hell-bound, but so many church-goers are still programming their boys to be women (and this is typically because most church buildings today don't follow God's Word). This sometimes happens directly, and sometimes indirectly, like when they put them into the public education system that gives them letter grades based on how feminine they are, or through TV and movies that teach them the same corrupt values, but nonetheless, they're learning it just as much in the average, leavened, 501c3 corporate church building as they are in public schools.

To give a personal example, when I was 17 years old, I was attending a church building in Indianapolis with my parents, and in the youth group was a young woman who had just started her freshman year at college. I asked her what she was studying, she shared it with me, and I found it so interesting, I asked if she would email me some of it so I could look over it. She agreed, but I heard nothing back from her, so a couple weeks later I saw her in the youth group again, walked up to her, put my hand on her shoulder, and said "Hey, you told me you would send me that info, but I never got anything from you," to which she responded that she had forgotten about it.

The following week, I had one of my few friends pull me aside and tell me that this girl was telling her friends that I sexually molested her during that encounter, and I knew he was telling the truth because he had no idea I had talked to her at all. I don't think anyone even stopped to consider what that did to me back then. First, I was horrified that anyone would ever think I would do something like that, but also it ruined my perception of women for many years to come, and ingrained in my mind that I was a sick and useless boy that had to somehow prove that I wasn't what I was claimed by others to be; thus, I ended up in a series of horrible relationships with horrible women I should have never had anything to do with. (This was only one of many instances which led me to tolerate terrible women, but I was just giving one example.)

I never told my parents about the matter, and the real question is: Why didn't I tell my parents? When I was growing up, my younger brother and I had two older sisters, and on the rare occasion my parents would go out for an evening, my sisters were obviously in charge. However, my sisters decided to run the household the way they wanted, often barricading my brother and me in the basement, and did things that were against household rules in general, and other specific wrongs to my brother and me, the details of which my sisters probably wouldn't even remember. (I know younger siblings can be annoying, but that's not a reason to mistreat them.) When my parents would get home, the girls would tell their account of events, and when we boys would try to tell our account of events, the girls were automatically believed. So the message I received when I was younger was that girls were to be believed, but boys were not to be believed, and so to the point of the young woman accusing me of sexual molestation I didn't commit, embedded in my mind was a philosophy that girls would automatically be believed about anything they say, so one false accusation against me would immediately get me in trouble if my parents found out. (Hopefully, that example will help readers understand the danger of feminist philosophy.)

Over time, I began to recall more and more of these instances in which women were crying sexual abuse when there wasn't any at all, and I can remember male friends and co-workers in tears because they were accused. Whereas females are encouraged to come forward and speak up about any problem they're having, males do not get the same privilege, and often their speaking up about issues leads them to being scolded, ridiculed, or punished.

I remember listening to an older woman who, after starting numerous shelters to help battered children, started one of the first ever adult women's abuse shelter, and for both children and women, she got substantial funding. She then started to notice the number of men who were being abused by women, and when she tried to start a men's help center, she couldn't get any funding at all because wealthy persons and corporations need to see a return on their "charitable" investments, and there is no return on investment for helping men. She eventually changed the name of her organization to suggest "family" help, so she could get funding and be able to help men as well as women, and this is because the feminist propaganda in our country has permeated so deeply, most people don't even believe it's possible than men could be abused or suffer in any way, and that they're simply disposable pieces of rotting meat.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Charity" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It has taken me many years to discover why I was so frustrated growing up while trying to make barely enough to have a small single-room apartment, and couldn't seem to make enough to have a working vehicle, all the while being told I'm a "privileged white male" and couldn't find a woman interested in a financially poor sap like me. Where was my special privilege? It didn't exist. The truth is that the white male in the U.S. is the most under-privileged group in the country, treated as disposable as grains of sand, and large portions of my paycheck were removed to make room to provide privilege to all other groups of people who were not me.

The frustration I felt came from the lies I was being told, but I didn't know they were lies at the time. All I knew was that what I was seeing and what I was being told were two different things, and it took me many years to let go of all the bitterness and anger that built up in me.

What I saw with my own eyes is that women in the U.S. were the most privileged class of people I'd ever seen. They were afforded luxuries and comforts, they were given protection and care, and I'd always seen that men were expected to provide those things for them. Don't misunderstand, this isn't to say that women don't work hard, but men are expected to afford women the luxuries to choose where they want to work, choose what type of work they want to do, and choose how frequently (or infrequently) they want to do it, which is extreme privilege and liberty that most men are never offered.

Phyllis Schlafly, who had six children and went on at age 50 to become a lawyer, in an interview right before she died at age 91, said:
"[Feminists] are against society's expectation that mothers should look after their own babies. They consider that that is part of the oppression by the patriarchy, and they're all the time talking about how unfair and mean the patriarchy is to women; all of which is nonsense because American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth."
-Phyllis Schlafly, "The Lost Interview," Freedomain Radio, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [youtu.be/OPwTpiX-8ZU?t=4m2s]

Schlafly died while I was writing this article, and she spent most of her life fighting against the feminist propaganda, but it didn't seem that's what she started out fighting. She simply wanted to protect mothers and homemakers from persecution by feminists because that's who feminists really hated; for the fact that mothers and homemakers were provided for, and because they were an extremely valuable asset to the men in the offices where feminists were trying to compete for work. (i.e. Wives gave their husbands the ability to focus on his work without worrying about his home life; a luxury and advantage feminists can't have.)

Sadly, the feminist propaganda has infected our society so deeply that most people are not getting married, and many of them due to fear, as we can clearly see from the examples I gave earlier of men's lives being destroyed by women. As of 2014, the amount of single men and women rose to the majority, meaning that married couples are now the minority:
"According to data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for its monthly job market report, about 50.2 percent of Americans over the age of 16 were single in August. The amount of single Americans has risen more than 50 percent. In 1976 when the government began collecting such statistics, 37.4 percent of adults were single."
-Lauren Keating, "Statistics show majority of American adults are single," Tech Times, Sept 10, 2014, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [techtimes.com/articles/15321/20140910/statistics-show-americans-adults-staying-single.htm]

The two major reasons for this are, first of all, what I just mentioned, fear of women. This is not fear of men; it's fear of women, where men are not trusting women enough to marry them, and it's sad because the Bible says a husband should be able to trust his wife:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
-Proverbs 31:10-12

The second reason is that women are becoming much more promiscuous than they used to be, having feminist propaganda stuck in their heads that they are "liberated" women so they can have as much sex as they want without any consequences. Condoms, pills, and abortions have allowed sinful women to avoid the dangers of sex, and by that I mean getting pregnant, not that pregnancy itself is dangerous, but without a husband and home in which to raise and care for a child, it is quite dangerous.
(Read "Abortion: Paganism, Satanism, Sacrifices, and Witchcraft" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

So now we have a bunch of men and women who are simply sleeping together (i.e. sin/fornication) instead of marrying to start a family. One of the great rewards of marriage is supposed to be physical intimacy with a woman, but since men are now getting those rewards without paying the price, we now have a commonly used phrase that says, "Why buy the cow when he gets the milk for free?"

The Bible tells us that it's not good for a man to be alone (Gen 2:18), and that a man should leave his parents and bond with his wife (Mark 10:7), but with young women adopting feminist philosophy, becoming contentious brawlers, what options are young men left with? For the man who wants a family, how is he able to find a woman he can entrust with his home and children when she can destroy his life with a single word?

And the media helps the lying and ignorant feminists in every way they can, but we are instructed by the Lord God to be wise to these deceptions:

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
-Proverbs 6:23-24

These feminist organizations are overflowing with backbiters and haters of God who want to suck men dry for every resource they have. In the end, they're adulterers and fornicators who are using the government to get the precious life they seek:

For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
-Proverbs 6:26

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

Christian women with a strong Biblical foundation are needed now more than ever. Certainly, female readers will say in the hearts, "But we need men like that too!" I agree, but our U.S. society is not set up to protect men who stray from God's Word; it's set up to protect women who stray from God's Word, because Satan has designed it to his liking, and the Devil knows it is much easier to get women discontented than men. (It's long been known that women are easily discontented, which is why advertising so often panders to women.)

Author and researcher Rebecca Traister analyzed historical research and interviewed many women about their choice to be single instead of married:
"The choice not to marry isn't necessarily a conscious rejection of marriage," Traister tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "It is [about] the ability to live singly if an appealing marriage option doesn't come along."
-NPR, "Single By Choice: Why Fewer American Women Are Married Than Ever Before," Mar 1, 2016, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [http://n.pr/1LVpEvq]

In the Bible, marriage is an "all-in" situation, where you become "one flesh" with your spouse, and you have no choice but to trust in him or her for the rest of your life. This is a scary situation, for sure, but today, people want insurance to protect them in case something goes wrong. If they don't like the person they're married to, they want an option to divorce, and if they decide not to be married anymore, they want to make sure they have full employment options. The bottom line is that they don't want to work for their marriage, they want an excuse and a lazy way out. I don't believe this researcher really got to the heart of the issue because what those women are really saying is that their choice not to get married or have children is because society has taught them that it is folly to trust men because "all men are evil" and "all men are rapists," so women don't want to go "all-in" with a man.

Likewise, a lot of American men don't want to go "all-in" with a woman either, and it's usually because many of them have never known an example what it's like to have a wife who loves and cares for her husband. Many young men are also being raised in single-mother homes, and to see vindictive women bad-mouthing their ex-husbands, or to occasionally see their father who is stuck paying child support for the better part of two decades, doesn't sound appealing to him, so he'd rather not trust in a woman; this all leads to men and women sleeping together in sin, but they won't marry each other in order to maintain a quick, back-door exit in case of emergency.

The argument often made for how all this feminism got started was over the right to vote, and we have to be careful because there are many teachers on the internet concerning this feminism issue that will advocate for what they call "first-wave" feminism, who were fighting for the right to vote. I disagree with any of the first-wave feminism, and the fight for women's right to vote because it's falsely named.

What most feminists don't even know is that it wasn't just women that couldn't vote in the U.S. back in the 19th century; most men couldn't vote either! The right to vote was granted only to those who legally owned property, which was only about 15% of the population, and personally, I wish we could return to that system. There are a few problems that have not been considered when analyzing the arguments of feminists on this issue, and I realize that 99% of the country is going to disagree with me, but I believe these points should be made.

The first point is that if someone doesn't own property, then they are not really contributers to the condition of the land over which they are voting for leadership, and thus, if they don't have a vested interest, they have nothing to protect. Let's consider a property owner who rents out an apartment building to tenants; in almost every instance, the tenants make very little money, which is why they're renting out of an apartment building in the first place.

The tenants don't have the extra money for things like education, so they vote in senators who will pass legislation to create a public education system, which is paid for through property taxes. Who pays property taxes: the land owner or the tenant? It's the land owner who pays the property taxes, so the majority of the tenants got together and overpowered the land owner to get property taxes initiated and raised, which hurts the land owner, and thus, the land owner must then increase the cost of the housing to cover the taxes, which puts more pressure on the tenants.

It is through the whining of those who don't have much that prices will go up, because contrary to popular belief, the government isn't an infinite bank of money. The money has to come from somewhere, and so it will inadvertently come out of the pockets of those tenants who now have the right to vote, which means they're actually hurting themselves.

There is a significant difference in philosophy between those who own and those who rent. Renters typically have the mindset of having things given to them instead of working for it, meaning that when something breaks (heat, air, water, electricity, etc), they complain to the property owner, and the property owner comes in to fix the problem, but property owners know that they have no one to turn to when stuff breaks, so they must rely on their own hard work and knowledge to solve problems.

Herein lies the problem in philosophy: The property owner votes in legislators who will maintain their right and liberty to be free on their own land, defend it, and keep their privacy. However, tenants (those who don't own property) have a mindset that things will be given to them, and that they have right to things they haven't earned, so they will vote in legislators who promise to give them things, but the things given to them are not free, and typically come out of the pocket of the property owner, which means that our country would be better off allowing only property owners to vote.

Those without property will always vote to take away the property (money, land, resources) of others and give it to themselves. Only property owners have a stake in what they own.

The true purpose of voting should be to select representatives that will make sure laws and regulations protect private property, because without private property, there is no liberty. Voting, however, has turned into a smorgasbord of beggars, voting for who can give them the most free hand-outs (which aren't free because the money has to come from somewhere).

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
-Proverbs 5:15

The poor, or non-property-owning class, will always outnumber the property-owning class. For example, as of 2016, the city of New York is 8.5 million people, and most of them are renters, not property owners. When the poor "takers" outnumber the wealthy "providers," the poor will always win in taking what doesn't belong to them and distributing it amongst themselves.

Allowing everyone over the age of 18 to vote has really hurt this country in so many different ways. If you will read our article "Should Christian Vote?" you'll see where I demonstrated the massive amount of ignorance in young voters (i.e. those who don't own property), who typically vote based on how "cool" they think a candidate is, rather than having intimate knowledge of right, wrong, and whether or not their candidate is a moral leader.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

One of the main reasons young people don't care about the selecting moral, righteous leaders is because they could not care less about morality and righteousness. One of the main reasons young people don't care about protecting private property and the free market is because they themselves don't own private property, and have had many things handed to them (i.e. government grants, education, Medicare, etc).

Of course, the argument people will always make is this: "What about military soldiers not having the right to vote, but being drafted into war?" Granted, military personnel should have a right to vote for their commander-in-chief, but that's only for PRESDENTIAL voting; there's a lot more voting that goes on besides the president. However, a quick amendment easily resolves this issue; simply make it so that anyone (whether they own property or not) who has served in the U.S. military is given the power to vote in the presidential election.

The reason some women felt left out of the process was because, typically, the title to land was owned by men, not women. So it was the men who voted, not the women, and in a few states, they had specific laws that prevented women from voting, even if they owned property, but despite what we're told by the media, a few women (in states that allowed it) did vote if they were sole property owners.

There's also a huge contradictory problem with giving all women the power to vote just on the grounds of being a citizen, especially in the 19th century. Most women ended up getting married, and so if she disagreed with the voting methods of her husband, she stepped up and cancelled out his vote, which not only takes away his voting power, but it also creates animosity in the household. With women being the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7) and more easily deceived due to emotional swaying, it's now scary when we consider that women are showing up at the voting booths more than men in the U.S. today. (Women have out-voted men since 1980.)
(See Catherine Rampell, "Why women are far more likely to vote than men," The Washington Post, July 17, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [http://wapo.st/2evpunU])

I know there's probably a thousand arguments out there about "what about this person" and "what about that situation," and really most of the answer can come down to charity. That's why the Bible teaches that theft and laziness is evil, that private property ownership and hard work is good, and that those who are wealthy should be charitable to those who have little out of the kindness of the hearts; not that the poor rally together and force the government to take what rightfully belongs to those who have earned it.

The bottom line is this: In America, it used to be that you had to work hard to EARN the right to vote. Now, it's handed to anyone freely, and most people not only have no appreciation of it anymore, but they also use their votes foolishly to get more for themselves.

Again, I pose the question: Who was more oppressed in the U.S., the women out on the streets protesting about voting rights, or the men who were dying overseas in WWI? Sadly, the women's rights movement used the dead soldiers as one of their excuses in demanding the right to vote without earning it; the soldiers had earned it by being in the military, and feminists built a bridge out of their coffins to march towards their devilish goals.

In the Bible, voting is not a right, and basic rights only consist of things having to do with life, liberty, and property. Voting is a privilege, but the communists/feminists claim a "right" to things that are not rights; for example, they claim "everyone has a right to Medicare" or "everyone has a right to education" or "everyone has a right to vote," all of which are privileges that need to be earned and worked for, not granted automatically by stealing from others.

Feminism arose not because of a lack of voting abillity, but out of a satanic desire in some women to rise above the authority of men. They wanted, and still want, to reject God's authority over them, and in the process of rejecting God's authority, they also must reject His Word, which gives authority to men over women. The hateful feminists then take the already-set male-created societal care automatically granted to women, designed by husbands for the benefit of their wives, and exploits them for personal gain. There is nothing more evil I can think of in this world than a woman who stabs in the back the person appointed to love and protect her.

The hate-filled fire of first-wave feminism (late 19th century) has only been fueled into the raging bonfire of hate in third-wave feminism (early 21st century), as we can clearly see by what they write: "Kill the patriarchy kill all men #killallmen"
-hizunaencounter, Twitter.com, July 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/hizunaencounter/status/490703050844438528?lang=en]

"This Mother's Day, show your mom you really care by giving her the gift that keeps on giving. #KillAllMen- and your sons to [sic]"
-baylamarika, Twitter.com, July 27, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/baylamarika/status/493529427133743105]

"The #twitterpurge is just making it one step closer to the real purge. And I can't wait till the real purge ;) #killallmen"
-wrestlingdogz, Twitter.com, July 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/wrestlingdogz/status/490657339377057792?lang=en]

"My dad genuinely just tried to tell me there is no glass ceiling anymore #killallmen"
-PoppyAnneMarie, Twitter.com, July 14, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/PoppyAnneMarie/status/488754408441020416?lang=en]

"#KILLALLMEN ALL MEN ARE PIGS THEY ARE ALL RAPISTS AND PIGS KILL ALL MEN KILL ALL MEN KILL ALL MEN"
-RavenAdmiral, Twitter.com, Oct 17, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [https://twitter.com/RavenAdmiral/status/788223762617499648]

What's more absurd is that I've listened to feminists who have said these kinds of things in public videos turn around in other videos and complain that men won't ask them out on dates. Gee, I wonder what could possibly be preventing men from being interested in women like this?

When it comes down to it, the money it takes to upkeep feminists demands for all their special treatment is going to run out someday because men are not made of money. All these "free" government hand-outs are limited. When the money disappears, you'll likely see a sudden, widespread change in the attitude of feminists; in fear, they'll quickly run out to find a man and tell him how wrong feminists were, how wonderful men are, and see if he's interested in marrying her so she can get access to his resources.

The world can be a scary place when men are in charge, because after all, men aren't guaranteed to do what's right; however, in a world where women are in charge, pure destruction would follow, and all the wonderful luxuries we now enjoy would be destroyed in a short time. Women need men; there's no argument to be made on this, but the argument will continue from the mouths of foolish females blinded to the truth the Lord God gave to us.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:6-7

Those of you Christians who are born-again and sanctified in the truth, it's up to you to set a proper example. Let's do what's right over what's convenient, and be a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ by the results of our strong marriages and families. I pray this teaching would get in the hands of young men and women everywhere, and if the Lord God is willing, that this would save them from the snare of the Devil.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:23-26

And the commandments for Christian women:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
-Titus 2:3-5

🔍