feminism (n): the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men
(See 'feminism', Random House Dictionary, 2015, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
Feminist.com's director Marrian Schnall says:
"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."
-Marriane Schnall, "Welcome to Feminist.com," feminist.com, retrieved Aug 24, 2016, [http://feminist.com/about/]
Like I said, it sounds really good, friendly, and peaceful on the outside, however, the truth is that everything she just listed out is the exact opposite of what the feminist movement is actually doing. What they won't show you on their "About" page are the flat-out lies feminists have screamed through bullhorns nor the true results and effects of feminist protests, which we will try to thoroughly cover here with all the documentation you can go research for yourself.
To get some idea of what I mean, let's look at a few feminist quotations that feminist.com won't tell you about, starting with Robin Morgan, editor for Ms. Magazine:
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, 1978, p. 178, ISBN: 9780394726120
Remember, the definition of feminism included "social rights," meaning they want everything social about men and women to be equal, then why aren't feminists hating women too? Already we begin to see that feminism is not about equality, it's about destroying families and men (i.e. fathers, husbands) specifically.
Feminist Linda Gordon, professor of history at New York University said:
The nuclear[i.e. core structure of] 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, quoted by Elayne Bennett, Daughters in Danger: Helping Our Girls Thrive in Today's Culture, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2014, p. 58, ISBN: 9781595554512
The truth is that the feminist movement is not about "human rights" and "health;" it's actually about hatred and destroying God's design of the family for mankind. In case that quote wasn't clear enough, feminist author and activist Vivian Gornick, in a fundraising letter by a relief organization for Kosovo refugees, said:
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession...
The choice to serveand 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 Marshall R. Goodman, Karla Marx and the Man-Haters, Lulu.com, 2015, p. 50, ISBN: 9781329358362
What happened to those "rights of women" that keep being preached by feminists? Why can't a woman choose to be a wife, mother, and homemaker? The truth is that feminism doesn't want women to have the right to serve as a helpmeet to their husbands. Their true goal is to destroy women's rights, removing the choice of women, and making all women adhere to the choices their movement has established for women.
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.
In fact, Gloria Steinem, one of the most popular feminist voices of the 20th century (and 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 your marriage and your faith in the Christian God of the Bible:
"We have to
-Gloria Steinem, quoted by David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, WND Books, 2005, p. 111, ISBN: 9781581824599; Kupelian is a bestselling author and journalist, and managing editor of WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower Magazine.
I've talked with a lot of women in my lifetime, and 99% of the women I've talked to about this subject absolutely cannot stand the feminist movement. Almost all the women I've talked to hate the feminist movement, find it an embarrassment to women, and wish they would just shut up and leave. In combination with the 99% of men I've talked to who also hate the feminist movement, it only seems like a tiny fraction of a percentage of women are in favor of the feminist movement, and even though their numbers are incredibly small, they're getting loads of media attention, which is due to a larger communist agenda working behind the scenes.
The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.
Popular 20th century spokeswoman for the feminist movement, Andrea Dworkin, did not leave any room for speculation when she said:
-Andrea R. Dworkin, quoted by Peter C. Pappas, Fanning the Flames, LULU, p. 155, ISBN: 9781483409665; Dworkin died in 2005.
I would like to make a very important point: Although this came from a feminist, I want readers to understand that it is not feminism that is the underlying problem. Feminism is only a symptom of the cause. It is sin that creates such violent hatred.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate 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.
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
An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
Feminist author and college professor Mary Daly, who died a few years ago (2010), said:
"If life is to survive on this planet,
-Mary Daly, quoted by Katherine K. Young & Paul Nathanson, Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man, McGill-Queen's Press, 2010, p. 354, ISBN: 9780773536159; Young is a professor of religious studies, and Nathanson a researcher in religious studies, both at McGill University.
Though she ended up in hell for her rejection of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I appreciate this woman's honesty, and I wish the rest of the feminists would be as honest about what's really in their hearts. Sadly, many of them are too cowardly to say what they really think and believe because they're trying to give a pleasant coating to the public, but thankfully, some feminists are direct with their words.
A woman by the name of Valerie Solanas 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, quoted by Dawn Keetley & John Pettegrew, Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism, Vol. 2, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 172, ISBN: 9780742522367; Keetley is a professor of English, and Pettegrew is a professor of history, both at Lehigh University.
Soon after publishing her rants on hating all men, Solanas entered Andy Warhol's New York studio, shooting Warhol twice, and attempting 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.
Solanas was just doing her part as a feminist, killing off men one at a time, but other feminists have bigger goals for extermination of men. Feminist Sally Gearhart, in an essay she wrote called "The Future - if there is one - is Female," stated:
The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
-Sally M. Gearhart, quoted by Jean B. Elshtain, Women and War, University of Chicago Press, 1987, ISBN: 9780226206264
Exactly how would these feminists kill off 90% of men? That was my first thought. I would like to know how these feminist women, who sit around most of the day crying about their woes, are going to kill off the 90% of men who are spending more time getting work done than crying about their woes.
If any female readers take objection to the above statements from these feminists, it should be noted that feminists believe you are automatically on their side, whether you think you want to be or not. They believe you should automatically want to kill off 90% of men as well, which would include your fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. Feminist author and journalist, Judith Levine, says that all women secretly hate men, even if they don't 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 byits 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.
After reading all these quotes, I'm sure many readers will be a bit stunned because most of you have probably never heard these things stated before, but I want readers to get a hold on reality before we start to analyze the deeper concepts behind feminism. The mainstream media is generally careful to hide the true beliefs and agenda of sexism and violence advocated by feminists, but how did these women develop such a vicious, sexist hatred?
I am fully aware that some people, mainly feminists, will not like my answer, but it's important that we understand the truth they won't tell you. The feminist movement in generally is an outcry of women who refuse to take responsibility for their choices.
I want to make sure I emphasize this point, so I'll repeat it:
|The feminist movement is an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their choices.|
To understand this, let's look at a phrase that's been put on many e-cards and bumper stickers: "
Whenever something bad happens to these women, in their eyes, it is always the fault of a man because they don't want to take responsibility for what they say and do. Their hearts are dead set on justifying themselves despite the facts.
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.
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
When questioned about relationships between men and women on the David Letterman show, feminist actress Sharon Stone gave her real opinions about men:
-Sharon Stone, quoted by Bret Carroll, American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia, SAGE Publications, 2003, p. 400, ISBN: 9781452265711
The humorous side of this quote is that, in a recent interview, Sharon Stone said she is now quite lonely, which should be no surprise since she has publically expressed her desire to dominate and harm men. She complains that men will not approach her, and typically distance themselves from her, due to the vicious sexual icon she has created for herself as an actress, but most children learn this lesson early in their life when their mothers say, "If you play with fire, you'll get burned." The problem here is that Stone acts like she is an innocent victim of her fame, but in reality, she is suffering the consequences of her words and actions; she just doesn't want to take responsibility for what she says and does.
(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 Aug 25, 2016, [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. 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.
Christians are not taught to seek revenge. Often, feelings of revenge make a man or woman forget what pain he/she has inflicted on others, or in other words, we should all look to judge ourselves first, and remember that we are all in desperate need of mercy.
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
-1 Corinthians 11:31-32
Once we get past the anger of these selfish vicious women deceiving the next generation and destroying families, their situation is actually very sad because the reason they want to hurt men is that they have been hurt in some way. They want revenge. Most of these feminists have never experienced what it's like to be around a good man, and as I'll discuss more later, they accept no responsibility for it. They've never had a good father or a good husband to be there for them, most of them coming from single-mother homes in which most of their mothers also CHOSE to be single.
As I was researching for this teaching, I found quite a few people on Reddit that were posting their testimonies of growing up as the child (or children) of a single mother feminist. The more I read from these testimonies, the more it confirmed the Bible's analysis of these women to be true. Let's read over a few of these testimonies so we can get an idea of what a feminist home is really like:
"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, [reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3jo7ac/growing_up_with_a_single_feminist_mother]
The man giving the testimony 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 member, 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. (The "equality" talked about in the feminist movement is a lie, and we'll cover more on that later.)
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, [reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tcjet/im_the_son_of_an_angry_lesbian_manhating_feminist]
This woman CHOSE to leave; it wasn't out of abuse, and the problem with people's general perception is that they've watched far too much television, in which shows always portray the abused wife, mother, or girlfriend. The vicious, sinful feminist is not portrayed because not only is there an agenda in the mainstream to boost the coverage of this small, minority percentage of women, but also because producers know that most audiences don't find whining, selfish feminists very entertaining.
A response came in to the story above, and I will be censoring the offensive 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:
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.)
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.
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]
There have slowly started to spring up some forums and groups for men to discuss the lives that have been destroyed by the harassment and threats of feminists. However, feminists are working their hardest to stop those meetings, claiming the meetings are full of "hate speech."
What exactly is hate speech? It's talked about all the time in the media, but it's never clearly defined by that same media. You'll commonly notice the individuals and organizations that use the term never define what they mean, and even if they did, it wouldn't make much sense.
Even though we don't have a clear definition, let's pose a question: Is hate speech guaranteed in the first amendment? That's an odd question to answer for anyone who has studied U.S. constitutional rights. Of course, it's obvious feminists would condemn "hate speech" is not guaranteed in the first amendment, but these women are extremists, and they make extreme claims, so the question we need to answer is the other extreme: Is "love speech" guaranteed in the first amendment?
These questions are nothing but rhetoric (exaggeration designed to influence you), and the fact of the matter is that the first amendment has the term "speech" without any adjectives in front of it. The truth is that the term "hate speech" is applied to anything that would make someone feel bad, or would make someone feel their life choices are wrong.
The problem with this is that the minority voice is the one that needs to be protected, and the minority voice is usually the one that most people find offensive. Freedom of speech was not designed so we could silence things we don't like, but to protect those who would speak things we don't like, and allow that minority voice to have a platform; just like the feminists are allowed to have a platform to spout their hatred as they please.
The term "hate speech" is a media tactic used to intimidate those who would speak the truth; it does not exist to protect those whose personal feelings have been pricked. The entirety of this article would be considered by feminists to be "hate speech," even though I am speaking the truth and backing up my words with facts and Scripture.
However, facts and Scripture, in places like Canada, have been ruled also to be hate speech. A newspaper ad containing Scripture references to verses that condemn homosexuality as sin was declared by a Canadian agency to be "hate speech" because it offended some queers who saw it.
(See Albert Mohler, "The Bible as Hate Speech? Gays Win Big in Canada," retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2ct85x7])
There will come a time in the future (in the U.S.) where the Bible will be slowly banned due to what is claimed to be "hate speech," and again, "hate speech" is a term that can be used at a person's personal convenience to intimidate the truth to be silenced, which is exactly what the first amendment freedom of speech clause was intended to protect. The use of the term "hate speech" by women will one day destroy the free speech of those women standing around with their picket signs and demanding equal rights; we'll have equal rights for sure because no one will have any at all.
Many Youtube videos have been posted of feminists working their hardest to interrupt meetings and forums for men, by shouting into megaphones and pulling fire alarms. In the videos I've seen, feminists are cheering and reveling at the pulling of a fire alarm to interrupt a meeting, which means they are cheering for someone breaking the law because if anyone is injured or property damage sustained during the event, it's a felony, which is a very serious charge.
(See "Protester Pulls Fire Alarm At UofT MRA Meeting," Apr 4, 2013, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [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,
In the video, the feminist organization, mostly consisting of women, blocked all entrances to a men's forum where a man named Warren Farrell was giving a speech. Many police and security officers had to be called to the scene, and eventually they had to forcibly remove the women screaming profanity at men and police in order to allow people to gain entrance to the public meeting. One man was interviewed was upset by this because all he wanted to do was go into the meeting to discuss with other men about two of his best friends who committed suicide, and not one of the feminists bothered to ask him why he wanted to get in; they instead accused him of being a rapist and yelled in his face until he had to walk away.
One feminist had suggested these men could go to feminist groups to discuss these things, but my question is: why are men not allowed to decide for themselves where they discuss their issues? On top of that, when women are following the men around, screaming obscene things in their ears (which was shown in the video), hurling insults at the police who are trying to keep peace and order, what motivation do men have to join feminist organizations for discussion?
Isn't it interesting that women are given open platforms to speak on these college campuses, but men are not? Is it not more interesting that, even though these college men are not allowed to have an open platform to speak, feminists continue to call them "privileged?"
privilege (n): a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most
(See 'privilege', Random House Dictionary, 2016, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
The reason these women had the privilege to march down streets with their signs 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 at that time never had to see.
Where were the women with picket signs that read: "Give women the right to suffer and die on the battlefield!" The fact is that women have always had the right to suffer and die on the battlefield if they wanted to, but not only do women not have the physical and mental capability to perform at the same level as a man on the battlefield, men afforded women the privilege to stay home with their families.
The important point to remember is that, in general, neither men nor women want to go to the battlefield. However, when someone has to go, men do not want women to suffer the heat/cold, sweat, strain, stress, bloodshed, destruction, and death, and so men go to face these things so their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and sweethearts won't have to.
Again, the definition of "privilege" is that a person is afforded special benefits and advantages over other people, and so "male privilege" would be special benefits and advantages that men receive over women. Let's take a look at some facts and find out how much "male privilege" really exists.
According to the Washington Post, since the 1980s more female voters have shown up to the polls than male voters:
"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 Sept 8, 2016, [http://wapo.st/2cofmMU]
So for almost 40 years, women have been the majority voters in the U.S., so how could it possibly be that we are still in a "male privilege" and "patriarchal society?" If anyone is to be blamed for a patriarchy, the blame would fall on the female voting majority in electing officials who oppress women.
USA Today gave average statistics pulled from the CDC's studies in which they 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, as of 2014, but this creates an interesting problem when we consider social security.
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 wrong and unconstitutional, but that's not the topic of this article. Because the average woman lives longer than the average man, the average woman gets more money and benefits than men do, and not only do we not hear one word of outrage from feminists about the lack of equality, but this is the opposite of male privilege; this is FEMALE privilege.
This problem gets far worse because men pay more social security than women do because men, on average, work longer and more hours overall than women. (We'll cover more on that later.) According to the National Academy of Social Insurance, women make up 56% (i.e. men only 44%) of the beneficiaries of social security. Women rely heavily on social security today because they often outlive their husbands, and so we have a situation in which women are paying less into the system, but receiving more out of it, with no efforts by the so-called "male patriarchy" to fix the numbers to take away the benefits of women and make them equal with men.
(See National Academy of Social Insurance, "Women's Stake in Social Security,' retrieved Sept 8, 2016, [nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/womens-stake])
In the Social Security Administration's (SSA) 2014 analysis, there are men and women who get retirement benefits, and as we can see from the chart below, more men (80%) received retired worker benefits (meaning they paid into the system and got their retirement) than did women (63%).
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 Sept 8, 2016, [ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2014/fast_facts14.pdf]
Women get benefits as widows (14%) over men (0.5%), and women get 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. How is it possible that men are suffering so much for the sake of women under a "patriarchal society?" Why not pass laws that make women pay more into it, and men get all the benefits?
I am firmly against the concept of tax-funded, government controlled Medicare for many reasons not listed out in this article (i.e. unbiblical & unconstitutional), but the U.S. has it, so let's look at the facts. Remember that we've already established that women live, on average, about 5 years longer than men, and that should automatically conclude that women spend more in Medicare than men.
The National Women's Law Center reports:
"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 Sept 9, 2016, [nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/the_importance_of_medicare_for_women_factsheet_08-29-12.pdf]
The above quote is from a woman's organization, but notice that there's no concern whatsoever for men, even though men (on average) work longer hours during their life and pay more into the Medicare system than women do. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services give more details:
"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 taught to be tougher than girls. When a girl gets injured, she's immediately given large amounts of help, rest, and care, but when a boy gets injured, he's 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.
To give an example, I was running in track and field during practice one day in high school (I was 14), and I fell, tearing up my arms and chin, to the point that I had blood running down my shirt and I had to have stitches that afternoon. I walked myself towards the school to get cleaned up (no offer of help) and when I finally started to fall over from lack of blood, finally someone came to give me assistance. They sprayed that disinfectant on my open, bleeding wounds, which burned terribly and caused me to tear up, and I was made fun of by the girls watching from the sidelines for crying, so hopefully, that will help some women understand a small drop of what boys have to go through. (By the way, I still have the scar on my chin from that incident.)
The Social Security Administration statistics from 2010 has a wide variety of taxes, all of which I saw showed that men paid in far more to the system than women. For example, the report showed that men are paying 59.3% of the social security (OASDI - old age, survivor and disability insurance) 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%. The same document showed that men are paying 62.7% of Medicare (Part A - HI), while women are only paying 37.3%, and men are only getting 44% of that money, while women are getting 56%.
I mean, how stupid could this so-called "male patriarchy" full of "male privilege" be that it would rob themselves of money, and hand it over to women. If we lived in a society of male privilege, shouldn't males take that money away from women and give it to men? We're just getting started, and already, you should be suspecting that something smells fishy with the feminist arguments.
Among the homeless, the grand majority are men, not women. This is not because men choose to be homeless, but rather because women are afforded more opportunities, as we have already seen, and typically, people take more pity on homeless women than they do homeless men.
The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) reported the following statistics to Congress for 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 Sept 9, 2016, [hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf]
This stat is far more interesting if you just think about it for a moment, because many more homeless people are men than women, which end up being categorized into "sheltered" (i.e. receiving assistance by some charitable organization) and "unsheltered" (i.e. out on the street). Even though women make up a much smaller portion of homeless people, far fewer women receive an "unsheltered" status, meaning that they have more opportunities to get help than men do, which is what we call FEMALE privilege.
The same report found that of the 47,725 homeless veterans they recorded, over 90% were men. Granted that more men are in the military than women, but the homeless issue is still plaguing men far more than women in the U.S. What's more amazing is that feminists constantly claim that it is "white" male privilege, but the 2015 report stated that most homeless people (49%) are white, and the majority (57%) of the unsheltered population (i.e. 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.
(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "The 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress," November, 2015, p. 1 & 9, retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf])
I'd also like to point out the absurdity of the front cover of this AHAR report because it features WOMEN, not men.
Homicides are categorized by many overlapping types of crimes, 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, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf]
It is much more likely for a male born in the U.S. to be murdered than for a female. This is for numerous reasons, but one of the more obvious ones is military (i.e. war casualties) because males born in the U.S. are required by law to register with the Selective Service System between the ages of 18 and 25, or could suffer up to $250,000 in fines and five years in prison, something women never have to worry about. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
(See Robert Longley, "Register for the Draft: It Is Still the Law," About News, July 4, 2016, retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm])
If feminists want equality, then they should personally go sign up for the draft of their own choice. 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 attack by feminists against housewives and homemakers, but thank God Almighty that it was revoked because us men do not want our women being forced into combat. (i.e. Real men don't send their little girls to fight their battles for them.)
It is my prayer that all American women would have good men in their lives that would be willing to defend them. I also pray we would continue to have men in this country who are willing to lay down their lives for their mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, and sweethearts, as Christian men ought to be willing to lay down their lives:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 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.
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.
Our military specifically kept women off the front lines of the battlefield until last December (2015). Prior to a new ruling that allows women to serve on the front line if they choose, women could join the military, but were exempt from serving in areas where the constant threat of being shot or blown up was a reality.
(See Bill Chappell, "Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Live Ground Combat Positions," National Public Radio, Dec 3, 2015, retrieved Sept 9, 2016, [npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/03/458319524/pentagon-will-allow-women-in-frontline-ground-combat-positions])
As a side note, a lot of military personnel are against women being put on the front lines because they become more of a liability than a help, and there are both former and current military authors consisting of men and women who don't like the situation. Military personnel carry between 60-100lbs of combat gear, which is much more difficult for a woman to carry than a man, and on top of that, if a man is wounded on the battlefield, he would rather rely on a man who can drag/carry 200lbs of a man off the battlefield, than to trust a woman, who would have to call for help to do the same thing.
The Bible says the woman is the weaker vessel. This is why there has always been a separate male and female category for the Olympics and other major sporting events.
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
"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 Sept 9, 2016, [people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance]
There's a reason why no woman in the world had passed the Ranger camp; it took male-level physical capabilities to accomplish, and women simply cannot meet those expectations. The Daily Mail also reported on the subject:
"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 Sept 9, 2016, [http://dailym.ai/1YHjR5s]
The women only passed because they were allowed to not complete all the duties of the course, and they were not given the same restrictions that men must endure. In fact, all areas of physical requirements have been lowered for women in the military, as military.com points out with the Army Basic Training Physical Fitness Test:
As we can see, women do not have the same exercise requirements men do in order to pass basic training. The number of sit-ups is the same because men and women have similar core muscles, and the Bible makes mention of women having strong stomach muscles. (Pro 31:17) Women have fewer push-ups and longer time for running the same distance in order to pass basic training because they have weaker upper body strength and weaker/shorter legs. This is called FEMALE privilege, and it certainly doesn't make our military stronger.
This actually becomes rather funny if you think about 1970s ERA that would have required the government to have no distinction between men and women in any state institution (like the military). It would have meant that either all standards would have to be lowered (i.e. weaker military), or almost no women could join because none of them could pass the rigorous prerequisites to become a soldier.
Outside of physical capability, a drill sergeant, with all his ruggedness, hard words, and strict attitude, has no place in a hospital ward, and likewise, a nurse, with all her gentleness, soft words, and comforting attitude, has no place on the front lines of active combat. 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, and worse still, the conflicting interactions between men and women being thrown into a combat situation will only stir up trouble.
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 Sept 13, 2016, [warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea]
David Patraeus, a retired general, resigned from his position as director of the CIA over an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a former military officer. 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]
Again, I've read many authors, both men and women who have served in the military, that will agree with exactly what she 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; it's not just physical characteristics, but also the social interactions between the two genders.
Women should be able to easily understand this: if you are gathered together with a bunch of girlfriends in a group, and man enters the room, it changes the entire dynamic of the room, which also changes what women would normally say and do without him there. Likewise, in a group of men, if you throw a woman into the mix, it changes the entire dynamic of the room, which also changes what men would normally say and do without her there. This is common knowledge to almost every person on the planet, but feminists ignore these facts for selfish motivation, and it gets even worse when we consider they are willing to throw our combat military into disarray, risking lives, for the sake of their communist agenda.
Although there are varying factors for why people commit suicide, in the U.S., men make up 80% of suicide cases, and out of the 41,149 suicides reported in 2013, that means over 90 men are killing themselves every day. The CDC reported that suicide is the 7th leading cause of death for men, and 14th leading cause of death for women. In a world where men are supposed to be incredibly privileged, it makes you wonder why so many of them are killing themselves.
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Suicide: Facts at a Glance," 2015, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf])
Another aspect of FEMALE privilege is the fact that the courts are much lighter on criminal sentencing for women than for men. A study by the University of Michigan Law School in 2012 showed a huge gap between men and women on court punishments:
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 Sept 13, 2016, [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. While observing all these equal factors, men still received 63% harsher sentencing than women, and the author was explaining that factors such as childcare or roles in the offense were not near substantial enough to explain the gap in sentencing. Isn't it strange that in a society of so-called "male privilege" that men would sentence themselves much more often and more harshly than women?
The FBI reports on murder victims:
"Of the 12,996
murder victimsin 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 Sept 13, 2016, [ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain]
The FBI report also pointed out 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 arguments, but here's the problem:
"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 571documented 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 Sept 13, 2016, [deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty#facts]
Since about 10% of women commit murders, the rate of execution of women on average should be around 10%, but it's not. This means men are being sentenced more harshly than women for the same crime. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
As of 2012, college enrollment across the U.S. added up to almost 21 million students; 9 million were male and 12 million were female. That's right, 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.
From the University of Georgia:
"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 Sept 21, 2016, [news.uga.edu/releases/article/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212]
First, likely due to the howling of feminists, student loans are helping women more than men:
"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]
Of course, the above research comes out of Ohio State University, so obviously there's going to be brainwashed propaganda in it; for example, they claim the reason for this increase in female loan opportunities is because men drop out sooner than women because women have to get a degree to be successful and earn as much money as a man. Later, when we get to the section entitled "The Illusion of a Wage Gap," we'll see that's not true, but just to give a quick example, Elizabeth Holmes is the youngest self-made female billionaire, and she dropped out of Stanford during her second year to start a business. My point is that women can do just as much as men in business and industry if they simply put their minds to it and dedicate themselves, unlike feminists who just sit around all day yowling that the government (men) should give them more privilege beyond what they already have and more money than they actually earn.
First, I want to make the disclaimer that Christians (and Americans in general) should not be getting in debt in the first place; second, colleges don't teach as much as they indoctrinate; and third, in most fields, you can get better job opportunities with a six month internship (which is of no cost) than you can with a degree. That being said, as a white male who first entered the college scene, I went looking for those "male privilege" opportunities I kept hearing about from all the feminist teaching I grew up with, but I was surprised to find that all minorities (blacks, Mexicans, etc) and women in particular, had access to programs and grants that flat-out rejected me because I was an average white male with average grades and no special skills, and I ended up flipping burgers trying to barely get by. (i.e. Men like me get ignored by society; what happened to my so-called "male privilege" I was supposed to have access to?)
Of course, if we look at the stats from 100 years ago, hardly any women were pursuing college courses, 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. The fact is that over the past 100 years, there have been many labor-saving devices (e.g. dishwashers, washing machines, dryers), and the industrial revolution along with the plastics industry has allowed very cheap products to be purchased (e.g. throw-away diapers, low-cost baby food, etc), so whereas women used to have to do everything by hand and make everything by hand which consumed all their time, there is a lot more ease of work today that has allowed them to pursue other goals.
Of course, feminists will whine that they didn't have the opportunities men had to go to college, but as Phyllis Schlafly (wife and mother of six children with a law degree) would say, she "had no problem" competing against the men in college "long before all these feminists were born." There were no groups of men standing outside colleges protesting women entering university education, and so rather than whine about it all day, women like Schlafly got to work. It is through hard work that goals are achieved and obstacles are overcome; those obstacles are not overcome by feminists whining about their perceived personal woes.
(See Phyllis Schlafly, "Political Activist Phyllis Schlafly Speaks to Citadel Cadets," Apr 17, 2012, retrieved Sept 14, 2016, [youtu.be/ZqBfy5DpwdE?t=12m15s])
Most of you probably have no idea who Judith Sheindlin is, but many of you have heard of the show "Judge Judy," and during Judge Judy's interview with wicked feminist Katie Couric, she denied any association with feminism because she relied on hard work first and foremost:
"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 Sept 14, 2016, [youtu.be/_7p8LWbp8qM?t=8m15s]
Sheindlin 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, 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; she went on to make a lot more money than most men. (We'll cover that more in a later section called "The Illusion of a Wage Gap.")
Getting back to the classrooms, girls are making higher grades in all school subjects than boys overall. 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 Sept 14, 2016, [apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx]
There is a very serious problem here that most people don't even recognize as a problem because they are so brainwashed and blinded to what's happening, but even as a high school student, I remember thinking about this issue and writing about it (although no one took me seriously because, after all, I'm just a white male). I'm just a C-average, college dropout, who failed Math and English courses in high school, and tested incredibly low in reading comprehension performance testing given by the state (i.e. ISTEP in Indiana), so how is it possible that I've taught myself computer programming and I'm writing articles that college students have asked permission to use as source references for their college theses?
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 knowledge or learning, but are rather trained to assess individual BEHAVIOR. (i.e. They're more babysitters than teachers.) In short, the letter grades in public school are more psychological assessments rather than knowledge of a subject, and if a child scores low on that psychological assessment, they're punished by their parents (which is encouraged by the school and the state).
In order to help readers understand this better, consider a male child genius who can grasp the understanding of concepts simply by hearing or reading about them, and when he goes into school, he hears the teacher give a lesson, understands the material, and then is sent home and required to sit quietly in his room, performing the menial task of repeating what he just learned and understood 50 to 100 times over. This is an incredibly boring task, and for a genius mind, he wants to be challenged instead of 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. Thus, he begins to lose interest, and often doesn't do homework and fails to participate in class (and sometimes not even show up), not because he's a bad student or doesn't understand the subject matter, but because he is being judged by psychological standards that are not helping him to learn, but rather are holding him back.
Some readers might find this to be gender-biased for me to refer to some boys as geniuses and not considering girls. I'm not saying there are not girl geniuses, but please consider:
"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 Sept 14, 2016, [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: 10.1037/0022-06220.127.116.11, retrieved Sept 14, 2016, [willettsurvey.org/TMSTN/Articles/GirlsHaveEdgeInAchievementScores.pdf]
A lot of the assessment of grades are based on behavior, like sitting quietly in a seat for long hours every day, or performing menial tasks over and over, which boys have a much harder time doing than girls. I remember numerous classes having the majority of my grade dependent on attendance and participation, rather than understanding of the material (i.e. testing), and when I got into college, I actually tested out of some courses before I started, which is something I wish I could have done in high school because the #1 reason I scored poorly in many courses was because I was so incredibly bored, I didn't care to do the homework, and I was not being challenged with practical application. With each passing year, public school systems are not only being dominated by female teachers, but the entire system has become matriarchal in that it now caters to girls by creating a behavior system that rewards girl-like behavior with higher letter grades, which is why girls' grades are rising, but they are not out-performing boys in intelligence testing.
To give an example, we can look at professional chess masters, very few of which are women; men being the dominant gender in the field. This is not because women can't play chess, or that women can't play chess well enough to be a master, but women make different life choices, and most women don't care about such things.
Nigel Short, former British World Chess Championship finalist, has been cruelly criticized for speaking 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]
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 not news, neither is it something to cry about. 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, but when a man points out the clearly obvious tendencies of girls in the world today, he gets burned at the stake.
Getting back to teachers being just caregivers (which are those who are paid to look after a child, including, but not limited to, nannies, maids, and day care workers) rather than educators, it's important to note that most of them are made up of women. The Wayne State University Journal of Developmental Psychology did a study in 2012 that found 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 closenessthan 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 qualitysuch that more negative views of a given child - regardless of gender - predicted poorer-quality caregiving, rated by independent observers, for that child."
-Winer & Deborah A. Phillips, "Boys, Girls, and 'Two Cultures' of Child Care," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, January, 2012, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2546673751/boys-girls-and-two-cultures-of-child-care]
In case you may not have understood, the study is pointing out that caregivers (which are primarily women) are giving less quality care to boys than to girls because they are not connecting to them on a relationship level. The study found that women tend to favor girls over boys, and so caregivers are giving boys "negative" feedback of "behaving poorly," because in our society, boys are expected to behave like girls. (i.e. FEMALE privilege) This means young boys are already being fed propaganda and confusion before they've barely learned to walk on their own, thinking that everything they do as males is error and bad behavior that needs to be "fixed."
"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."
-Winer & Deborah A. Phillips, "Boys, Girls, and 'Two Cultures' of Child Care," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, January, 2012, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2546673751/boys-girls-and-two-cultures-of-child-care]
This becomes a bit frightening when you 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 destroyed before they're old enough to even have enough personality development to differentiate their behavior from girls, and because of their "behavioral problems," most parents and schools immediately put them on drugs to "solve" the "problem."
(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 Sept 28, 2016, [nwlc.org/press-releases/60-percent-women%E2%80%99s-job-gains-recovery-are-low-wage-jobs-nwlc-analysis-finds])
To put this into perspective, 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 school and state determined that the black-skinned children have mental problems and they need to be drugged (e.g. Ritalin) so they act more like the white-skinned children. Of course this would be clearly racist bigotry against blacks, and anyone could clearly see that, but when it comes to sexist bigotry against males, no one asks questions.
A few years down the line, boys enter American elementary and middle school classrooms that are dominated by female teachers, meaning that, no matter how fair the women may be, 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's sad 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.)
On the other hand, as boys get older, they are more able to sit and be quiet and learn. 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 Sept 21, 2016, [news.uga.edu/releases/article/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212]
He's saying that there used to be a larger male presence in education. Often, women would get married, get pregnant, and become mothers and homemakers, or they would choose to have unwed sex and become single mothers; either way, 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 so more women are taking opportunity to build a career, meaning that more women can be teachers (and it's much harder for men to get hired into child education), and so the fluctuation of grades is reflecting the feminine style of learning, which hinders the boys' educations. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
Granted, there are many examples of male teachers being sexist against girls, and I've heard the stories. However, what's being ignored today, and what we never hear about, are the biases of female teachers in a female-dominated school system against boys.
Moving on, let's see how privileged men are in divorce proceedings. Despite what you may have learned through television shows and news programs, women are the primary filers of divorce:
"Throughout most of American history,
[Click image for larger view]
On the issue of no-fault divorce, in case readers don't understand what that means, before the 1970s, couples used to have to "find fault" in their spouse before they could get divorced; either proof of child abuse or proof of an extra-marital affair, something along those lines. A no-fault divorce means that couples don't have to provide evidence of anything, and they can get divorced for any reason. Some hypocrisy on this topic comes from the aforementioned Phyllis Schlafly of the Pro-Family movement who, during the fight against ERA, went to Ronald Reagan to get his assurance of his stance against ERA, but Reagan was the first person (during his tenure as Governor of California) to pass into law the no-fault divorce policy, which was the beginning of a wildfire that destroyed families.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Some of the states analyzed in the study had statistics of women filing for divorce as high as 81%! However, on average, women divorce men 2 to 1, which really destroys the preconceived mainstream media impression that most women are trying to keep the family together. Granted, some of these divorce proceedings are over drunken abuse (by both men and women) and affairs (by both men and women), but it is statistically impossible for those factors to account for the incredibly high percentage of women who file for divorce across the U.S.
Margaret Brinig, associate dean for faculty research at Notre Dame Law School, who performed a study with Douglas Allen, Economics faculty at Simon Fraser University, said:
"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. physical and/or psychological damage]. 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's 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 they don't do that. The courts pump out divorces in factory 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 almost all cases.
The authors predicted that the differences in divorce filings would start to disappear as women more often enter the work force, but it hasn't happened. It is also important to mention that such a prediction is completely foolish because female divorce filings have increased as women have entered the work force, not the other way around.
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," United States Census Bureau, December, 2011, p. 2, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf]
This means that women are being awarded custody of their children 6 to 1 over men. Of course, a feminist would say this is because men are evil or bad fathers or rapists or violent abusers, but as we'll see in statistics later, women hold equal, if not more, fault for violence and evil as men. Thus, we can conclude based on clear statistics that women file for divorce to break up the family 2 to 1 over men, and then take the children 6 to 1, leaving the children fatherless.
Why is it, if we live in such a "male privilege" society, that men do not win custody battles far more often than women? Why is so much favor being given to women in these cases? It's called FEMALE privilege.
We also need to consider that, of the (less than) 18% of men who win custody of their children, in many of those cases, the mother doesn't even show up to court. Winning by default isn't technically a "win" concerning custody statistics.
The Supreme Court of Nebraska Office released a study about custody hearings in family court in order 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 sample cases at random out of almost 70,000 cases in Nebraska between 2002 and 2012, and reported:
"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 mothersand the defendants were more likely to be fathers. Fathers had statistically higher incomesthan 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 Sept 22, 2016, [http://bit.ly/1QODLYW]
Let's stop this quotation for a moment because many things need to be said and considered here. First of all, it is the women who are much more likely to be plaintiffs in these cases, which matches previous statistics of women filing for divorce 2 to 1, and that the men, in many cases, are not in favor of the divorce.
Let's also consider that men have statistically higher incomes, and this not due to a "wage gap" issue, as we'll see later in the section entitled "The Illusion of a Wage Gap." Most of these custody hearings are taking place during the divorce, so guess who is paying the woman's and the man's lawyer fees? The man is paying both sides, and that's why, in half the custody cases, men are not nearly as often represented by a lawyer as the woman. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
The children, in most cases, were living with the mother at the time, so to move them in with their father is usually automatically seen as "not in the best interests of the child," and in addition to that, only 1 in 7 cases was a joint custody requested, which leaves 6 out of 7 where (in most cases) the father is fighting for custody, but loses almost every time (and we'll see more reasons why that is when we get to the section "Exposing the Truth Behind Domestic Violence"). 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 lawyers' fees for both himself and his wife (in addition to up to 40% of his income for child support or alimony payments), often, he knows it's best just to let the mother have her way, letting her have custody, than to put himself into poverty, which is why some fathers don't even bother contesting their children in court.
Certainly, there are deadbeat dads that don't want anything to do with their children, and the mother has to step in to take charge of the situation. I don't deny that happens, but what we never hear about is the other side in which men are almost not even given the option because of the huge amount of favor women are shown in family courts. (i.e. FEMALE privilege) In fact, in this study, the argument of the typical feminist, that men lack skill or ability to raise children (i.e. he's a drunk or doesn't have a job), is shot down 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.)
-Michael Saini, "Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study," Nebraska Office of State Court Administrator, Dec 31, 2013, p. 28, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [http://bit.ly/1QODLYW]
The bottom line is that women are awarded sole custody in about 70% of cases according to this Nebraska study, with men coming in a far distant second at 13% (the rest are joint custody). Think about this too: If men get sole custody, then who has to pay child support? After all, the woman can't be bothered to pay child support; she must make the man do it, and in most cases, he does, which means he is incentivized (i.e. encouraged to) to automatically give the woman custody since he would go broke in a near-hopeless battle. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce reports from 2011, women are required to pay less total child support than men, but men end up paying their higher amounts more often than women their lower amounts. Women receive from men on average 63.2% of what men owe in child support, but men only receive 54.6% of what women owe in child support. In case you don't understand the chart below, the "Amount Due" is how much the father (blue) or mother (red) is supposed to receive, and the "Amount Received" is how much they actually got, showing that men are required to pay more than women, and also pay more often than women.
I just mentioned dead-beat dads, but have you ever heard the phrase "dead-beat moms?" No, you likely haven't. However, statistically, dead-beat moms are actually more frequent than dead-beat dads. 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. (i.e. 1 out of 4 men don't pay child support, but 1 out of 3 women don't pay child support.)
Over the years, since I did a teaching on marriage, I've had people write me and try to argue for a marriage license, not because they had a particular desire to have one, but because they knew it would cause problems with their family and the church building they go to (i.e. they wanted to do what was convenient instead of what was right), and I tried to explain to them there are hidden things in that marriage (i.e. corporate business contract) they don't understand. For example, a man can marry a woman, thinking she gave birth to his child, and a couple of years later find out she was cheating on him, have a paternity test, discover the baby is not his child, and the couple ends up filing for divorce; however, even though there is proof the child is not his, because of the marriage contract, he will still be required by law to pay child support every month until the child is of legal adult age.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" and "Gay Marriage & Christian Hypocrisy" here at creationliberty.com for more details about what a government "marriage" contract really is, and why so many couples get in trouble by getting a license.)
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 doesn't pay, which makes the U.S. one of the few places left in the world where there are "debtors prisons." If a man loses his job and can't find another, police will come to his door to arrest him for not making child support payments; it's happened, and continues to happen, but we almost never hear of women being arrested for lack of child support payments.
(See Lina Guillen, "Pay Child Support or Face an Arrest Warrant," Lawyers.com, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [family-law.lawyers.com/child-support/pay-child-support-or-face-an-arrest-warrant.html])
In addition, men who have sole custody of their children (and are due child support payments they often don't get) end up working full or part-time jobs much more than women do. Custodial men have full-time employment 71% of the time, while custodial mothers only have full-time employment 48% of the time.
Alas, it gets worse; MUCH worse. Imagine for a moment that a woman who was raped would be forced by law to pay for meals, housing, and therapy for the rapist who assaulted her; this would be totally unbiblical, and abhorrent to anyone I've ever met. However, when a woman rapes a man (which does happen quite frequently, and we'll cover more on that in the section called "The Illusion of a Rape Culture"), and she has a baby from that encounter, U.S. courts have ordered the man to pay child support.
For example, a 15-year-old boy was the victim of statutory rape by a 34-year-old woman, and she sued 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, 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 Sept 27, 2016, [law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/50/842.html]
Read the case for yourself if you like; upon becoming of legal adult age, this boy (not legally a man yet) was going to be responsible for paying the expenses of the rapist who assaulted him. If it were a young girl, there would be media outrage and feminist groups rallying to her aid, but because he's a boy, he's stuck with monthly payments until he's in his 30s, and the story never sees the light of day. (Where's the male privilege?)
The story of Frank Hatley also reveals more of this illusion of male privilege since he paid tens of thousands of dollars in child support payments, suffering short jail sentences for not paying during terms of unemployment, and it turns out the child wasn't even his (i.e. the woman lied):
"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, [cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/11/georgia.child.support]
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.
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
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. (i.e. A man must pay full child support payments WITHOUT REGARD to circumstances.) If a man gets deployed into active, front-line combat duty in the military, he must make full child support payments, or at least make them up and pay the full amount if he missed them. If a man is put in prison, if he loses his job and can't find another one, or if he is hospitalized in a coma, when he wakes up, he is responsible to pay, in full, all child support payments he missed, and most important of all (as we have already seen) if the child is proven to not be his, 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, and the man is held fiscally responsible for her actions; if he doesn't pay up, then he goes to jail, and there is no hearing, there is only immediate sentencing. (i.e. male slavery, FEMALE privilege)
(See Douglas R. Weimer, "The Bradley Amendment: Prohibition Against Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages," CRS Report for Congress, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2da9g10]; There are currently (as of Sept 2016) organizations working on repealing the Bradley Amendment because of its unconstitutional nature.)
This is particularly tragic for some military personnel because, as I demonstrated earlier, 65% of women file for divorce, and this is a somewhat common problem for military men who are away from home for long periods of time. The wife gets lonely, she decides to abandon him and file for divorce, and then requires him to pay for it. Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly so accurately wrote:
"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 Sept 28, 2016, [eagleforum.org/column/2005/mar05/05-03-02.html]
Truck driver Donald Gardner learned about this "male privilege" the hard way:
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 workas 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]
That's right, the government on behalf of these feminists DEMAND that a man pay his child support payments. If he doesn't, they take away the things he needs to earn money, and demands that he make payments; if he doesn't, they throw him in jail, and then demand he make payments when he gets out. Ladies, please take a moment to consider: If a man wants to pay child support payments, but is in the situation that Gardner was in, what is he supposed to do? (i.e As we'll see in the next section, men can't get help like women do by just flashing a tearful eye.)
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 Sept 28, 2016, [forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#105627bb23c2]
Men are held responsible not only for child support payments if they are raped by a woman, but also if a woman steals their sperm. There have been numerous examples of court cases in which a man and woman engaged in sexual activity with a condom, and afterwards, the woman took the condom and impregnated herself WITHOUT his consent, and the man is 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 Sept 28, 2016, [divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml]
The woman invited the man to have sex with her randomly in a hospital, and that should hopefully warn men why you ought to flee from such dangerous situations of fornication. She stole his seed, implanted it in herself, and it not only destroyed his life, but also caused a child to be born into a broken home.
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
"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.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 [i.e. 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]
Young men, read this carefully: You need to know the law before you get involved with any woman. You need to know that you are held responsible no matter what happens, even if you're not at fault, and if you're dating or having interest in a woman who is a feminist, you need to end that relationship immediately and get as far away from her as possible for your own sake.
There are some people who will be angry with me that I would suggest such a thing, but the real solution to the child support problem is to drop all government-enforced laws, regulations, and agencies that force men to pay child support. We cannot live in a healthy, liberty-based society and still have government sanctioned child support, and in order to understand this, let's pose a few questions.
First, has heavier government intervention on most matters helped or harmed our country? Obviously, it's done a lot of harm, and anyone with half a brain can clearly see that government getting involved in most things is a huge mistake.
So the next question we need to ask is how can we get men to pay for their children without government intervention? The answer to this is quite simple, and it's the same answer to the question: How do I get more people to frequent my place of business and spend money?
Let's suppose you own a restaurant under a free-market society, and you want to get people to come to your restaurant first and foremost over others; what do you do? You have to work hard at it. You need to increase your skills in pleasing customers, which would include improving your attitude towards them, desiring to serve their needs, also making sure what you produce (in this case, food) is of higher quality, and, in general, making your customers feel like they are royalty in your restaurant.
So how does a woman get a man to want to spend money on her and her children? She has to work hard at it. She needs to increase her skills in pleasing the man, which would include improving her attitude towards him, desiring to serve his needs, and also making sure what she produces (in this case perhaps a clean home, delicious home-cooked meals, and well-behaved children) is of higher quality, and, in general, making him feel like he is royalty in her home. (The Bible calls this "reverencing" her husband, and we'll cover more on that later.)
However, feminists hate this concept because they want men to pay for all their living expenses (and that of their children), but they want to be divorced from them, or in other words, they want men to still give them resources without being around. Feminists are lazy women that don't want to do the work of making themselves look pleasant, acting kind and loving, and supporting a man in the way he needs, but they want to be paid the money that a real wife and homemaker gets from her husband for the work she does.
QUESTION FOR WOMEN:
What could I do to make a man want to pay for his family?
What about the few women who may have been raped and have a child? Should they get child support? No, they should get charity. It's sad that people turn to the government, who steals money away (via taxation) from her family, friends, church, and neighbors, instead of looking to her family, friends, church, and neighbors for charitable help in their time and money.
The vast majority of single mothers in the U.S. have CHOSEN to be single, and are using the government to force men to pay for his family without him being with them. It's cruel, and it's pathetic that most single mothers didn't want to do the work of a wife to be a pleasant, kind, beautiful, and helpful woman that a man would want to come home to, so they instead choose to be mean, brawling, and ugly feminists because they're too lazy to change themselves to be help meets.
This free-market approach would also encourage husbands and wives to stay married and work out their problems together, but feminists hate that thought. Men are expected to work hard 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 also that women not ostracize him from the family (via divorce) and learn to be the best wives the market has to offer.
Again, I must emphasize the Biblical standards of keeping away from fornication, adultery, and alcohol, and that God's instructions for Christians will keep us out of trouble, but on a legal standpoint, a woman is not held accountable for being impregnated against her will. A man, however, is held accountable for a woman impregnating herself against his will (either through rape or sperm theft). We'll discuss more details on rape in a later section, but if there were truly male privilege, then the opposite would be true, women would be held accountable for their deceptive choices, but the reality is that men's lives are being ruined at the hands of women who take advantage of the system that gives her special FEMALE privilege.
(Read "The Bible vs Alcohol" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
One of the privileges women get is the ability to drop the word "abuse," immediately having people running to her aid, and all the support she can imagine. Without evidence, women can immediately get free assistance and benefits, while instantly destroying a man's life at the same time.
"[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, [justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence]
This sounds relatively reasonable, but let's also read Law.com's legal definition:
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])
I searched for "domestic violence" at feminist.com, and by now I'm sure you can guess that all I found was violence against women. For an organization that claims to fight for "equality for both sexes," I've only seen articles on their website that portray men as terrorists rather than victims; for example, they link 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 Sept 16, 2016, [womensenews.org/2011/08/prevent-violence-insist-men-stop-the-abuse]
Certainly, men who beat their wives or children should be punished, and certainly there have been some domestic violence cases concerning female victims, and certainly we should insist that people stop abusing one another. However, what the mainstream media and feminism (who both seem to be working together) don't tell you is that many studies have discovered is that not only are women just as guilty of domestic violence as men, but women more often instigate domestic violence, as this California State University investigation states:
"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 relationshipswith 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 Sept 15, 2016, [web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]
This bibliography shows hundreds of case studies (that span hundreds of thousands of cases) in which women have been found to be at fault for domestic violence against men, and many of those studies showed higher percentages of women instigating domestic violence. As a note, it should also be pointed out that a substantial number of these cases have one spouse initiating the violence, and then the other returns it, or in other words, they're fighting each other at the same time; however, women in the media are almost always excluded from fault.
To help understand why this is the case, consider a group of men and women in which a vicious and threatening argument is breaking out, who is the first to hit someone else? Is it always the strongest person in the group who is the first to strike? Or is it the most emotionally unstable person? The one who is the most enraged, nervous, fearful, or vindictive is usually the first to physically lash out, and in the grand majority of cases, women are the more unstable gender when it comes to emotions.
For women to understand this better, if 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, pepper spray, or if you're a government-reliant stooge that doesn't believe in using weapons for self-defense, just hit them with your purse. However, if two young boys about five or six-years-old walked directly up to you, started calling you names, and started pushing you, would your first reaction be to get out your gun, pepper spray, or hit them with your purse? No, you wouldn't hit, spray, or shoot five or six year old boys because you are far bigger than they are, and your first thought is typically, "Where is your mother?!"
So women more often will physically attack a man bigger than she is, and if she is emotionally angered for some reason, the obviously stronger and bigger man doesn't usually see a need to use physical force against someone smaller than him. I obviously cannot provide hundreds of case studies in this article (because it will make this far too long), but I want to list out a few cases documented in the bibliography I referenced to above:
The problem with the feminist arguments is that, through my own experience on the matter, and from every man I've ever met, is that American men have been taught as boys that you don't hit women. There are some violent women out there who take advantage of the fact, knowing a man won't hit them back, and he won't report them because it's not a "manly" thing to do (not to mention that men will get laughed at in humiliation if he reports his wife beating him), so men simply tolerate the female violence against them, but if we lived in a society of so-called "male privilege," then why aren't these attacks on men being reported in the media? (i.e. Female complaints to violence are taken more seriously because of FEMALE privilege.)
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 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, [womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men])
I'm not making this up folks: The U.S. Government assistance website for women entitled "Men's Health" spends most of the page talking about how men are violent, and in the very small section which addresses violence against men, it never mentions women being the instigators of the violence. (i.e. They presume that the violence is coming from other men in the household; assuming that women can't be violent.) 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, [womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men]
Men's rights organizations have started to arise for many such reasons, but mostly because men, especially white males, are not getting any help for the abuse they take, and as we'll see in a moment, they are getting arrested by police for even speaking up. 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 Sept 16, 2016, [news.mensactivism.org/?q=node/5649]
In the U.S., domestic violence against women is the least common case, with most instances being both men and women harming each other, but women are more than twice as likely to be the sole perpetrators of violence than men. 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 (i.e. both men and women 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.
(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 Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])
Feminists will claim that these issues of violence were always in self-defense (i.e. a woman can never do anything wrong), but these statistics were simply asking the basic questions about experiences with violence instigation, 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, the woman will almost never have to suffer consequences for it. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
What are some of the reasons for physical violence in dating or marriage? According to a study done by S. Claxton-Oldfield and J. 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 Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])
The typical line we're fed in the media about women not reporting rapes (which is not true, as we'll see later) is that the women feel like they won't be believed, or that they fear reprisal [retaliation] against them, or that they don't believe the police would do anything. That's interesting because a 2005 study (R.B. Felson & P. Pare) analyzed data from The National Violence Against Women Survey, and found that "
(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 Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])
Why are men fearing reprisal from women? Because in cases of domestic violence, all a woman has to do is say, "he started it" or "it was self-defense," and whether or not it's true, or whether or not she was involved in the violence, the man is automatically arrested. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
And sadder still, there are women who purposefully take advantage of men because they know men won't retaliate, or at least, they believe men won't retaliate. A 1997 study (M.S. Fiebert & D.M. Gonzalez) surveyed a sample size of 968 women, documenting reasons women gave for initiating physical violence against their male partners; they found that "women appear to aggress because
(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 Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])
What a fantastically brilliant way to emotionally connect with your husband or boyfriend: Beat him up. If we said that the way to connect emotionally to women was to beat them up, that would cause rioting in the streets in outrage, but if anyone says it about men, it's just accepted or ignored.
I need to emphasize that what these women are saying is that they KNOW the men won't hit back, so as a coward, she abuses him with full expectation that she is safe from harm. Remember the definition of feminism I gave earlier? It's an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their actions. Ladies, consider this: If you walked into a lion's den in a public zoo, walk up to the male lion, start screaming in the lion's ear, "You're a stupid lion; you're a useless lion!!" and then slap the lion across the face, it's not going to take the lion very long before he realizes that it's easier to eat you than to tolerate you.
What's sad is that I know of women who would treat their pets with more decency than they would treat a man. She wouldn't beat her dog or cat to emotionally connect with her pet, but she would beat a man to acheive the same goal.
As any mother or father with multiple children will understand, someone not listening isn't a sufficient excuse to hit someone, nor is the excuse "I wanted him to feel how I feel." Women don't believe men will be injured, but how hypocritical of those abusive women who want to "engage men emotionally," when not only can they physically injure men, but they are sure to do emotional damage that would take many years to heal.
I find it fascinating that we, in our culture, understand 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 chasm (deep canyon of distance) 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 what was broken. However, why is it that women think men don't react the same way? Why is it that a woman thinks she can slap a man across the face, and she won't have to suffer the same consequences?
Please don't think that men don't get physically injured by women; it happens more often than you might think because, as we saw earlier, most men won't report female violence. 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:
866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partnerwithin 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, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10463549]
However, follow up studies have not really been done, and are mostly ignored due to the overwhelming feminist propaganda standing in the way of truth. I'd like to emphasize that, 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 won't be believed, the police won't do anything, and they would likely be humiliated in the process.
More from the California State bibliography I referenced to earlier:
Dr. 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 researching 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.[i.e. Batterers' programs are groups designed to help men stop being violent against women.] 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, [nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977]
Let me make sure we fully understand what it means when the men get referred to a "batterers' program." The batterers' program is a counseling group that helps violent men stop beating women. So when a man is being assaulted by a women and calls an abuse hotline, he's given a number to help him stop assaulting women.
Hines reported what some of the men had said about their experience calling a domestic abuse hotline. I'd like readers to keep in mind that the mainstream media (and feminists alike) have taught us that women are the ones who get made fun of, don't get help, and aren't believed concerning domestic abuse; please remember that while you read the testimonies of these men:
Let's say an abuse hotline took calls from female abuse victims, laughed at them, and gave them reference numbers to a local gym to lose weight and look better for men, what would happen? Feminists and the mainstream media would lose their minds in uproar and protest, and there would be lawsuits and any other media circus event you could think of, but when such things happen to men, no one bats an eyelash. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
Here's another example from Western Australia's Department for Child Protection and Family Support. If you click on the image, you'll get a larger image to view that compares both women's and men's domestic violence helplines.
The section of the website for women says:
"This service provides support and counselling for
women experiencingfamily and domestic violence."
-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "Women's Domestic Violence Helpline," Government of Western Australia, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Women's-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx]
The section of the website for men says:
"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, [dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Women's-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx]
Granted, at the end of the page, they do 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 they provide for women and men, and these are from the same sources I just referenced:
Now, 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 it's 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 means that men must "help themselves" instead of getting help, and the only thing it helps them do is stop abusing women, presuming that women cannot be instigators of abuse.
"If you’re reading this booklet, it's probably because:
The introduction to this "self-help" document for men provides a mock story about "Adrian" and "Phillipa," and says "Adrian realised that his behaviour towards Phillipa was abusive.
In the U.S., we have a "Violence Against Women Act" that has encouraged states to pass laws which have made it mandatory for police officers to arrest someone whenever there is a domestic abuse call, which by-passes fourth amendment constitutional rights of probable cause via a court-ordered warrant. A randomized experiment conducted in Minnesota claimed that these new laws reduced domestic violence cases, 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 wasn't 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."
First of all, many states have laws right now that require police to arrest someone automatically, even if there is no evidence of a crime committed, or even if the caller lied about being abused. For example, a woman could call the police about domestic abuse, and then after the police arrive, 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 give an example, Alaska's mandatory arrest laws state:
"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 attorneyin the jurisdiction in which the offense under investigation arose."
-Alaska Legal Resource Center, "AS 18.65.530. Mandatory Arrest For Crimes Involving Domestic Violence, Violation of Protective Orders, and Violation of Conditions of Release," retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter65/Section530.htm]
This means a police officer has to get special permission to NOT arrest someone, which is completely contradictory to the U.S. Constitution. With that in mind, domestic violence cases have actually 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 have actually caused more domestic violence and made the problem worse.
In case you may not understand why this is happening, imagine for a moment a man who is beaten by his wife on a regular basis, but he doesn't want to hit her back, and so he bottles up that bitterness and resentment. One night, she goes off crazy on him, yelling, screaming, and hitting him, and tells him she's going to call the police and accuse him of abuse. When she picks up the phone at that point, his bitterness and resentment finally explodes into anger and he realizes he has two options: Either he suffers arrest, criminal charges on his permanent record, fallout and blowback from his friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family for being a "wife-beater," and possibly losing his career, home, and/or family, or he could just kill her, dispose of the body, and take his chances to get away with it. I'm not justifying the man in this situation, but rather I would ask the women reading this: In his position, what could he possibly do? (If you think you know an answer, just keep reading.)
As we can see from the gender bias against men (in favor of women) on domestic abuse cases, it's not hard to figure out that most women are not prosecuted for domestic violence, even if they are arrested. A woman is brought forward in a court room, she's small, she's crying, and the resulting conclusions is, "How could this little crying woman be violent? Case dismissed."
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 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" are 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," retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [endvawnow.org/en/articles/437-determining-the-predominant-aggressor.html]
These descriptions are almost all completely in favor of arresting men for domestic violence. For example, weight classes almost always lean towards men being the heavyweight over the woman, which means the man will most often be arrested during domestic violence calls. Another problem is that the "demeanor" of the parties can easily be manipulated by a crying woman who will be seen by the police as an innocent, weak victim, even if she was the instigator, and again, the man will most often be arrested. Governments worldwide are making it easier and easier for women to destroy the life of an innocent man by simply flashing tearful eyes in the direction of police and judges, all on the assumption that women never lie and women are never violent.
The U.S. "Violence Against Women Act" gives women low-income housing assistance, protection, and free legal aid with pro-bono lawyers who will oversee their case, while men are expected to pay for their lawyer fees on their own or go to court without legal representation. This gives women incentive (i.e. government subsidizing) to make false charges against men and lie about what happened in order to get special benefits that men don't have access to, and even moreso when we consider that women are almost never prosecuted for making false charges against men. (i.e. FEMALE privilege - we'll cover more on that in the section on rape culture)
Though the following author does not target a specific gender, he points out that there is a serious problem in the U.S. court system with bias against parents falsely accused of abuse:
"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."
-Author requested to have his name removed from this reference; "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 Dec 16, 2016, [papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2715774]
I have been told that most divorce attorneys in child custody cases instruct women that they can bring up charges of abuse, whether they're true or not, either accusing the man of abuse against her or against the children, which will typically win the woman automatic custody of children and a court-ordered restraining order against the father. There doesn't need to be evidence in our current system; the woman just needs to CLAIM there was abuse, and she's automatically believed. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
Some (very few) researchers are looking into the current state of the law and how women have extreme privilege by simply dropping the word "abuse" in court. The reason they're looking at a change in the law in order to fix the problem is because there are currently no safe guards against vindictive women that use government, tax-funded resources for their own personal spite.
As a side note, please don't blame the lawyers in this particular instance. I've been told that lawyers can actually be sued for malpractice if they do not instruct women on their options. If a lawyer doesn't tell her she can drop the word "abuse" and get an immediate restraining order, then a lawyer can get in serious trouble.
I thought it was important to include this testimony of one of the surveyed male victims in a study published by the National Institutes of Health (carried out and authored by two female doctors):
"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: 10.1891/1946-6518.104.22.1686, PMCID: PMC2913504, retrieved Sept 21, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504]
It's sad that so many caring men like this are being arrested, abused, and humiliated, suffering almost daily torture at the hands of a woman for the sake of not losing his family. A man is not to hit a woman, even in self-defense, even though she yells and rails and nags and hits and bites and stabs; if he retaliates, he could lose his career, his family, and go to prison, and there are no organizations he can go to for help, so ladies, let me ask you again: What should he do? What options does he have? (i.e. This is a rhetorical question; meaning there is no answer, I just want women to consider it.)
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:
Most men and women would tell the man to leave her; in fact, 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:
"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," Dewar Research, October, 2004, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dewar4research.org/DOCS/mdv.pdf]
If we saw women being antagonized by police for reporting being abused by their husbands, or if we saw women being arrested for reporting being attacked by a man, it would be abhorrent to everyone in our society. However, it happens to men all the time, and almost no one even stops to consider it.
Our current justice system is following the whims of evil women into alienating men and destroying families without any burden of proof that is normally required in a court of law. Of course there are women who tell the truth about abusive men in effort to protect their families, but 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 is that women seem to be MORE prone to violence than men, so where is the prosecution of abusive women? This problem gets even worse when we hear the stories of girls who cried “rape.”
In a video I included in the introduction to this article (of feminists blocking entrance to a men's forum), many women were screaming profanities at men and police (such lady-like behavior), and you'll notice they keep accusing the speaker of the meeting, and every man who attends, of being a rapist. This is not uncommon. A feminist blogger, who claims she was raped (although if you read the vague description, it sounds incredibly far-fetched), says that all men are rapists by default:
"Let me tell you sisters,
-Annemarie R. Weissberg, "All Men Are Rapists!" Femminist-Fatale, Dec 4, 2012, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [thefemministfatale.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/all-men-are-rapists]
"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 Sept 1, 2016, [truthrevolt.org/news/feminist-all-men-are-rapists]
I'd like to point out that she is including myself, and all my Christian brothers, in that statement, who make an effort to love our wives and mothers as the Bible instructs us; that we all should be put in prison and shot. I'm also automatically accused of raping or wanting to rape women, even though I've never done the deed, nor can I recall any thoughts of doing the deed when among women, but isn't it wonderful that we have feminists around to tell us men that we are genetically predisposed to beat and rape women?
Where is all this hostility coming from? Why are innocent men being accused of doing something they obviously didn't do? Most of this deception is born out of false statistics and lies that have convinced gullible women that we (in the U.S.) live in a "rape culture."
Marshall University has a Women's Center website where they define this term:
"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, [marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture]
I'm going to state this as delicately as I can: The United States is NOT a rape culture. In the U.S., rape is not prevalent, nor is it normal and excused by our government and the media. The fact that a feminist would try to convince people that we are in a rape culture only shows what evil liars they are, and I want everyone to see the facts.
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 Sept 29, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777345/#ref7]
So before we get into statistics, let's ask a few questions to test the cognitive reasoning of feminists:
Barack Obama, who has become infamous for his dishonesty and deception in the policies he has approved 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 (whitehouse.gov), Jan 22, 2014, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2c81dSs]
This is very strange to me because for a few years I lived spitting distance away from Ohio State University's college campus; I was right on the edge of it. I frequently traveled through it, and I had many female friends who lived on campus because they attended school there. I never once heard of anyone being raped while I lived there for four years (nor anyone who had heard of anyone who had been raped), and around every corner there was an emergency station that had a phone and button to press for emergency campus security 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 the statistics were 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. Something isn't right here. As unsurprising as it may be, it turns out Obama just repeated what he was told by feminists, and those feminists learned it from one feminist who pulled the numbers out of a rigged survey. (We'll see the details of that later.)
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 were 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% rape rate among college students, in reality, there was only a 0.6% rape rate, which is 1 in 164, not 1 in 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 Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf])
It's also interesting to note that, according to this study:
"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 Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]
Typically, when we think of a woman being raped on campus, the average person thinks of a complete stranger wearing all black and hiding in the bushes along a path in a dark area, and he jumps out of the brush, grabs the woman, and violently rapes her off the path. In fact, this is not how most rape occurs, and as the report continues to point out:
Most (51%) student rape and sexual assault victimizations occurred while the victim was pursuing leisure activitiesaway 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 Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]
So the scenario in which the stranger jumps out of the bushes to capture and rape a woman walking home at night is actually more around 1 in 1600 students, taking into consideration that only 1 in 5 rapes are strangers, and only half of those could be categorized in transit (i.e. not pursuing leisure activities). These numbers are FAR lower than feminists would lead us to believe, but they continue to deceive the public with fake, made-up statistics that will help their ridiculous agenda of shaming and destroying men.
Feminist author Jessica Valenti, in a blog post she wrote called "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One," which conveniently had no statistics on it, 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 Sept 1, 2016, [thenation.com/article/americas-rape-problem-we-refuse-admit-there-one]
Valenti believes there is a rape culture in America, when there isn't, and so encourages readers to EMBRACE A LIE in order to incite change. These kinds of statements are extremely common in the feminist movement, and what is more common is the lack of actual statistics and proper referencing to sources to back up their claims.
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 in claiming the U.S. to be a rape culture. She found this stat came from Ms. Magazine in 1985 by author Mary Koss, then 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
I'm pausing this quote to mention that, on hearing the 1 in 4 stat, I too found it to be absurd. Growing up, I've had many groups of friends in various places at various times, and this just doesn't match up with what I've seen. I've talked with women who have been abused or raped, but it is much rarer in my experience, and of those who I have known to have been raped, it did not happen on college campus. The numbers are just not anywhere close to what feminists commonly claim it to be.
The problem is that the stats feminists keep regurgitating aren't about rape; they're about regret after fornication and adultery (i.e. sex with consent):
"'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
"I immediately regret my decision" is not a legitimate excuse to destroy another man's life. It is for this express reason that men's rights groups are spreading out these types of images to start countering the feminist propaganda:
I would like to once again point out: if you don't get involved drinking alcohol at all, you won't run into these problems in the first place.
(Read "The Bible vs Alcohol" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
If you simply think about the definition of rape being changed to someone giving someone else a drink of alcohol, as Koss (above) attempted to do, then the logic of the situation gets thrown right out the window. It would mean if a man and a woman are sharing two drinks, he pays for the first round, she pays for the second, and they choose to have sex, then they are both raping each other, which makes NO sense whatsoever.
In the United States, we have had quite a few drunk driving advertisements pop up in the last 30 years because driving under the influence (DUI) has become a problem due to the lowered moral standards in the 60s and 70s, and the fact that vehicles were being designed for speed and convenience over safety. (i.e. No more steel framed vehicles so they can go faster; research Studebaker.) People driving drunk were beginning to cause a huge amount of injury and death to other drivers, including my own parents, who were almost killed by a drunk driver when I was young.
Anti-drunk driving advertisements almost always feature men in the driver's seat, and that's often because statistics have shown that about 85% of DUI arrests are male, and so feminists jump on this to preach that it is a "male" problem. What is not considered in these statistics is that women typically go to the same bars men go to, but women travel in groups and will go home with a male driver (i.e. they expect the man to drive them), so the commercials don't ever portray a drunk woman in the passenger seat who is aiding and abetting the drunk driver.
There are African and Hispanic men and women who get arrested for drunk driving, but PSAs (public service announcements) that are paid for by tax dollars, almost always target white males. The reason for this is because if you target anyone but white males, there is public outrage for racism or sexism, and this is because no one ever gets fired for attacking or shaming white men.
The point I'm making is that if these ads only portrayed black men, someone would have noticed, and organizations (e.g. Black Lives Matter) would have started protests or riots over it. If these ads only portrayed women, someone would have noticed, and organizations (e.g. National Organization of Women) would have started protests or riots over it. However, because it's white males, there is not a group to give them a voice, and so demonizing them is fair game for anyone.
In addition to the advertising problem, as we've already demonstrated in the earlier section on "The Illusion of Male Privilege," courts and police officers are MUCH lighter on females than males. Women more often get off with warnings, and courts typically give a woman less sentencing for the same crime as a man, but honest advertising that showed those differences would get someone fired because it reveals too much FEMALE privilege, and paints women in a light that doesn't favor the feminist/communist agenda.
It's interesting to note that Sommers goes on to point out that only 25% of the surveyed women considered the incident as rape, and of that quarter, 40% of them chose to have sex with the accused man later afterwards. Continued sexual intercourse is not a normal relationship pattern rape victims develop with their rapist, so obviously, the stats were loaded in order to create the illusion of a rape culture, which in turn furthers the agenda of perverted feminists who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
And again, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning:
|The feminist movement is an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their choices.|
For feminists to claim that the involvement of alcohol somehow automatically excludes women from moral responsibility is insane, and does not coincide with any known law or regulation. If a driver crashes her car into another driver's car, that's bad and there are consequences, but if she crashes her car into another driver's car while intoxicated, that's really bad and there are far greater consequences, so saying that the involvement of alcohol rids one of responsibility for their actions is totally illogical and flat-out stupid.
If women get a pass, meaning that drinking alcohol gives them immunity to consequences, and the feminists want equality, why not give the same to men? If a man drinks too much alcohol, and he rapes a woman, why is he not given immunity to consequences? Certainly, a man who drinks too much and rapes a woman should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but a woman who drinks too much and chooses to have sex shouldn't be able to lie and get away with it simply because feminists have called the U.S. a "rape culture."
The phrase "rape culture" didn't even become a popular term until after a documentary came out in 1975, entitled (you guessed it) "Rape Culture," but what's fascinating about the timing is that while they were filming this documentary, rape was punishable by death in the U.S. It wasn't 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 certain circumstances based on what the Bible tells us about God's 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 Sept 1, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2bUsLZW])
Thankfully, because of the Lord Jesus Christ, we do not have to adhere to the punishments concerning the statutes of God's law, but in the days of the Jews in the Old Testament, if a man forced himself onto a woman (i.e. rape), 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 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.
In the Bible, a thief didn't go to jail; he had to pay back four to five times what he stole, and this was to compensate the victim. Today, thieves get thrown in prison, but they typically don't end up paying back what they stole, and they definitely don't have to pay back multiple times what they stole; in a nutshell, the victims don't get compensation for the crime against them as they did under God's law.
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.
Sadly, our government does not punish rapists the same as thieves, forcing the attacker to be servant to the victim for the remainder of his life. That would certainly deter a lot of crime. However, what's even sadder is that many women are lying about being raped, and changing the definition of rape, to the point that men are now becoming afraid of being near women at all.
But I want to emphasize that, if our culture was a "rape culture" that was ruled over by these terrible rapist men (which feminists call "the patriarchy"), then why did the Federal Government and 16 states declare execution as punishment for rape in 1971? If you were a man who was raping women, why would you pass a law that would give you harsher punishment if you got arrested for rape? It doesn't make any sense does it? 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."
It's insulting to women in Africa, a real rape culture, for these privileged feminist liars to claim they are in a rape culture. 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. THAT is a rape culture, and it's an insult to the African women for privileged, self-righteous feminists in America to feign a connection to their situation.
(See Lee Middleton, "'Corrective Rape': Fighting a South African Scourge," TIME, Mar 8, 2011, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2057744,00.html])
The hateful feminist Jessica Valenti, who I quoted above 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, |
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?'
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
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.
There are things about McElroy's speech that I applaud, but keep in mind that there are also things she said and didn't say that are still serious error and bias. First, I applaud her focus on facts, rather than ideological (i.e. theoretical ideas) nonsense, and she did very well in exposing the truth that many of these feminist authors quote from other feminist authors who made up the statistics in their books for the express purpose of pushing their hateful agenda. (i.e. Those authors are liars; she is exposing their lies.)
The problem is that McElroy is still a feminist, as she stated in the above video, and that means she still has an unbiblical, female-dominating worldview, and this is demonstrated when she said that claims about North America society being a rape culture, "is an insult to women who live in one." Don't misunderstand, I agree with this statement, and it does downgrade a real rape culture. The major problem is that Elroy doesn't bother to mention the victims of "rape culture" propaganda; she doesn't mention what this is doing to men, and most of these feminists don't care because, as I stated earlier, feminism has nothing to do with equality.
(McElroy does give an example of a man suffering at feminist accusations, but she gives no examples of false rape claims and how they have affected MEN specifically on a wide scale.)
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 Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]
This was all over the news at the time; this man was arrested for rape, given a $1 million bail, and sat in juvenile hall for a year before he was sentenced 41 years to life,. But on what grounds was Banks sentenced? One woman made a CLAIM, without evidence, and Banks' life was ruined instantly, but what's really amazing to me is how such a thing could happen to someone who lives in a supposed "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 Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]
The real question is, did he do it? It turns out that even though he was sentenced and thrown in jail, having his life destroyed, the oh-so-innocent Wanetta Gibson LIED.
Banks came home from prison, and while checking his Facebook account saw a friend request from Gibson saying she wanted to "let bygones be bygones" and offered to "hook up." Banks saw an opportunity to hire a private investigator and get a confession from her about lying.
"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 Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]
Banks was charged and sentenced on no evidence whatsoever; it was his word against hers. She lied, and not only destroyed a man's life, but collected $1.5 million dollars from the school! Who really had the power in that situation, was it the man or the woman?
I would also like to point out the obvious to those who live in the U.S. under a system that is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty," Banks had to prove his innocence. His life can be destroyed by one woman's word, but because a person is born a male, he cannot be trusted, and has to provide evidence of his innocence. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
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 Sept 2, 2016, [jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]
This is absurd for many reasons, first of all, the report Zuckerberg refers to was published by idaho.gov, and it stated that their statistics showed 2-10%, not 2-8%, which was based on a limited study of 136 cases, which means she didn't even have her numbers correct from the report. Second, I'd like to point out that's a 500% margin of error on the part of the study, so how reliable is this study in the first place?
On her website, commenters 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 Sept 2, 2016, [jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]
First of all, when you quote a percentage number based on a study that is performed by a state agency, and then make a reference to it, you're stating it as a fact. I 100% believe that Zuckerberg is a liar, and she was trying to cover for her error because, after all, according to feminists, women can't be wrong. She then confessed that she had no idea whether what she wrote was right or not, but found it convenient to put it down anyway because the lie helped people believe her feminist nonsense.
What's worse is that most feminists have taken this number, spread it around, and they all opt for the lowest integer (in favor of women, of course) and commonly claim only 2% of rape allegations are false. Some feminists also cite a 1996 FBI report that says:
"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
Feminists see "2%," quickly scribble it down onto large pieces of cardboard, and then run around screaming it into bullhorns. The tricky word here is "unfounded," and we need to understand what this means to understand why these percentages 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 crimesthat are reported to the UCR... UCR guidelines are clear that a report can only be determined to be false on the basis of evidencethat the crime was not committed or attempted."
-End Violence Against Women International, "Unfounding: False vs. Baseless Reports," retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=56]
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 rape cases in these statistics. This means that even if no evidence is presented that a rape has occurred, it's still counted in the number of rapes, 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's he's innocent. (i.e. Guilty until proven innocent--where's the male privilege?) However, most feminists don't care if the numbers are true or not, as long as the number reads in a way that makes women look good, they continue their hateful crusade to destroy men by screaming lies at the top of their lungs.
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 Sept 2, 2016, [newsweek.com/genetics-courtroom-192258]
It's important for us to understand what this means. A woman accuses a man of rape, in which seminal fluid is analyzed during the investigation, and the DNA results find that 1 in 3 women were lying (or mistaken) about the accused man. The Newsweek article was reporting old cases that were being reanalyzed with DNA testing, and innocent men were being exonerated after spending many years in prison for something they didn't do.
I say "mistaken" because it is possible for a woman to look at a lineup and attempt to identify her attacker, but get the wrong guy. However, I don't focus on this much because, as we covered earlier, most rapes do not happen in the circumstance of a man jumping out of the bushes in the dark; most rapes happen by those the victim knows personally, and usually during leisure activities.
It should be noted that this kind of false accusation has been going on for thousands of years, as the book of Genesis tells us concerning Joseph. Joseph was put in charge of all the property of a master's house, and the master's wife tried to lure him in to sleep with her, but Joseph refused her repeated advances.
There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he 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.
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.
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.
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.
In 1994, Dr. Eugene Kanin published a study of a small community with a population of 70,000 people, and between the years of 1978 and 1987 (nine years), he found 109 reported cases of rape. 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 [unwelcome departure from the norm], 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 Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
In case you may not have understood what he said, feminists are claiming that women who lie to save themselves from embarrassment or guilt are very rare (2%), but the actual studies are showing that women lying to save themselves stress or grief is quite common, to the point that police ought to be expecting it to be normal for women to lie. I used to have a video here that showed numerous TV news reports to give examples, but the account on Youtube was closed right before I published this article. Thankfully, I was able to write down a transcript of the news recordings, and here's what they said:
REPORT #1: "It was the middle of the day back on February 19th  when Cassandra Tucker called police... to say she had been robbed and sexually assaulted by someone impersonating a police officer. Tucker said the suspect was driving an unmarked Crown Vic[toria] and had red and blue flashing lights in his dash. The victim alleged she had been violated in several ways and so police took her to the emergency room to complete a rape kit. Tucker also told officers the suspect had stolen $150 cash from her purse, but on the way back from the hospital, Tucker told police she was really just trying to buy illegal drugs, that after she had spent her boyfriend's money on something else, she decided to file the false police report."|
REPORT #2: "This police interview with a Fort Collins woman, she was later convicted for making phony rape accusations, and the man she accused was arrested and put in jail one year ago today. Tonight, he is speaking to 7News reporter Lindsey Watts about why he is still struggling to pick up the pieces. Accused of rape, cuffed at the police station the day before Thanksgiving; watching it back one year later, Dustin Toth says his life still feels out of control. His accuser, Catherine Bennett, a co-worker he'd started dating; this is an exclusive video of her police interview as Toth sat in jail, her story fell apart... Bennett, later convicted of making it all up, she was sentenced to 35 days in jail, then an ankle monitor and probation. Toth says he's the one who's been punished. The Army National Guardsman lost his civilian job and was out of work for nearly six months after the arrest... [Toth said:] 'I feel like I'm incapable to actually trust a woman again... giving me the opportunity to share it, gives me the opportunity to clear my name because I still feel like my name is not cleared.'"
REPORT #3: "A man who spent a decade in prison for a crime he didn't do is awarded more than half a million dollars under a new Washington law. His name is Thomas Kennedy. He was released from prison two years ago, after his daughter admitted she lied about being raped. A judge has ordered the state to pay $520,000 under Washington's Wrongful Conviction Compensation Act... Thomas Kennedy tells me the money doesn't even begin to make up for everything he's been through, but he does believe it will help give him a fresh start... Kennedy spent 3,242 days in prison... wrongly convicted of raping his then 11-year-old daughter... his daughter later admitted she made it up. [Kennedy:] 'She still hasn't forgiven herself yet for it. That's what I'd like to see her get over.' After nearly a decade behind bars, he was released from his sentence in 2012... but he says life on the outside has been tough. 'My job situation has been whatever work I could find wherever I could get it, like the load of trash in the back of my truck today; it makes money.'... Kennedy plans to invest into his grandon's future... 'To me, the money is great, and I'm very thankful for that, but moreso, I'm thankful for the justice system doing what they can, admitting that they did wrong. That, to me, is priceless.'"
It's fascinating that, had the young man in Report #2 actually committed the rape he was falsely accused of, he would have had decades in prison. The woman who lied about him only got 35 days in jail, and was then released on probation. (i.e. A slap on the wrist because she's a woman who has FEMALE privilege.)
The man in Report #3 suffered almost ten years in prison on behalf of his lying daughter. Feminists believe that such men are incredibly evil, and I'm sure during his case, feminists looked down on him with disgust, but all this "evil man" wanted after ten years of suffering was for his daughter to forgive herself.
A local news station reported that a female college student arrested for DUI (i.e. drunk driving) tried to get out of it by accusing the arresting officer of rape, but a hidden vest cam revealed her lies. Another news station reported a 13-year-old girl who claimed in tears over a 911 call that she was raped by a man with a knife, triggering police officers to pull out all their resources (including a helicopter) to look for the suspect, but it turns out after picking a man out of a lineup, she confessed to lying, trying to avoid getting in trouble for being out late with a boy down the street; police officers said there was no remorse in her at all.
(See "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation #5," Sept 20, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxs4BcHg4])
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, showed them the video, and they decided not to arrest him.
However, the police didn't arrest the girls either. The cab driver was angry saying that he would have lost his job, gone to jail, and possibly lost his wife if he hadn't had video evidence to defend himself, but the police didn't seem to care and left the scene without arresting anyone because after all, they're women, so they can do no wrong. (i.e. FEMALE privilege) The cab driver filed a law suit against the girls, and I personally hope he won.
|In U.S. society, if a woman sheds tears, she's automatically innocent, and the man is automatically guilty. Welcome to male privilege.|
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 Sept 30, 2016, [nydailynews.com/news/crime/california-prison-psychiatrist-accused-faking-rape-article-1.989640]
William McCaffrey, a construction worker, served four years in prison over a false rape accusation from so-called "victim" Biurny Peguero, who lied and said McCaffrey attacked her, causing bite marks on her skin. Peguero told news reporters that McCaffrey hit her, removed her pants, and raped her. McCaffrey is filing 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 Sept 30, 2016, [dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365084/William-McCaffrey-sues-New-York-City-30m-false-rape-claim.html]
This indicates that, likely, Peguero was so mean and vicious, she was getting into fights with all her friends and/or boyfriends, and to cover up her drunken stupor, and to get revenge, she falsely accused McCaffrey of rape. McCaffrey sued for $30 million, one third against the police department for covering up evidence, but sadly, that doesn't punish the police, it punishes the citizens of New York. (i.e. Police officers involved should be fired, at minimum, but they won't be.) Peguero was sentenced to only three years in prison, but can get out early for good behavior, especially since she's a mother of two. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
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 and demanded justice, the resulting witch hunt led to his immediate conviction of a crime he didn't 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 Sept 30, 2016, [fox6now.com/2013/11/05/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 didn't 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's "gonna be so much fun! <3" Kost's attourneys have analyzed 98,000 pages of social media documentation, which was from only five out of the thirteen girls, and they are now requesting court permission to analyze the rest of the eight girls' accounts; a new trial is scheduled for Kost in February 2017.
(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, [azfamily.com/story/32705001/san-tan-valley-serial-rape-suspect-back-in-jail])
Another news station reported a woman who claimed a police officer pulled her out of her car and frisked her with sexual intent by grabbing her breasts and reaching under her dress, but the video of the traffic stop showed that she never exited the car and he never touched her, to which she admitted she lied to get revenge over a traffic ticket. In another report, a 22-year-old Oregon woman lied about being raped by five men in the woods, costing the county a lot of resources in hunting for the rapists; she confessed to her lie, but the department has been unable to determine why she lied.
(See "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation #3," Aug 30, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=NfmJjohBgrE])
A woman contacted the police and said she was raped, and a few days later, she pointed out Ross Currier as the assailant, so the police, without any questioning or due process, arrested him and threw him in jail. The woman later discovered that it was another man who assaulted her (she made a mistake), and Currier had an alibi that he was at home with his fiancee the night of the attack. Today, Currier is demanding a formal apology from the police, which they are thus far refusing, and Currier's career as a tax accountant has been crushed because he can't find work. (i.e. Anyone typing his name into a search engine pulls up immediate links to sexual assault, which is how I found this story.)
(See Travis Andersen, "Man wants apology after assault arrest," Boston Globe, Apr 9, 2014, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2dBpLXE])
Nowadays, it doesn't even take a woman lying about herself, but other women can lie for her, as we can see from former Colorado 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, the school refused to listen, and proceeded with prosecuting Neal for sexual assault. (Neal lost his athletic scholarships, and no other school will admit him--where's the male privilege?)
(See Max Kutner, "Suspended College Athlete Suing U.S. Over Sexual Assault 'Guidance'," Newsweek, Apr 4, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [newsweek.com/grant-neal-lawsuit-sexual-assault-pueblo-450334])
If you can't see the FEMALE privilege yet, let's look again at Dr. Kanin's 1994 study (41% of women lied), which specifically states that these false reports in which the woman lied were not from lack of evidence, but the women involved later openly admitted they lied. These numbers get more interesting when we look at the reasons they gave for why they lied:
"Of the 45 cases of false charges, over one-half (56%, n = 27) served the complainants' need to provide a plausible explanation for some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate consequence of a consensual encounter, usually sexual, with a male acquaintance... Representative cases include the following:
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. 85-86, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
So the true purpose behind these lies is to hide fornication and adultery, and if Christians, both men and women, will simply follow God's commandments, we won't run into these problems:
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;
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.
"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. 86, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
These women made choices, bad choices, and did not want to suffer the consequences of their actions, so they lied. They were more willing to throw an innocent man in jail than to suffer the embarrassment of their choices.
So far, we've seen women who didn't want to suffer consequences of their actions, and others who lied out of fear. Other women want revenge:
"An 18-year-old woman was having sex with a boarder [works in exchange for 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. 87, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
Some women are so petty and desperate for attention, they're 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. 87, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
Please keep in mind that just because 45 of the 109 (41%) of the women confessed to lying, it doesn't automatically make the other 64 (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 may be a much higher rate of lying than we can see.
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. 90, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]
So it was discovered in this study that it wasn't just university campuses, but in general, police agencies were found to have almost the exact same rate of false charges, and about the same types of reasons with almost the same percentages. It's 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, letting men unjustly suffer to save themselves the natural consequences of embarrassment and grief that their choices brought about.
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 incredibly 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 with wicked, selfish, lying women:
"There is disagreement over how many of these accusation 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. approximately 50% of the cases did not have sufficient evidence] 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. [i.e. The woman knew she could win custody of the children if the court was convinced the man was a rapist.] 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 Sept 6, 2016, [ipt-forensics.com/library/saadcd.htm]
The report also concluded that 79% of men (1983-1987) had successfully passed a polygraph test in denying sexual abuse in these cases, but, as we just read, the decisions were being made by social workers, rather than the justice system. Just on the observations of the social workers, without more proper investigations, they concluded that around 50% did not have the proper evidence needed to back up the woman's claim. When as many as 80% (possibly more) of child rape allegations may be false, this is certainly worth looking into, but as far as I know (as of 2016), it's been over 20 years since such investigative studies like this have been conducted, and that's mostly due to the barbaric howling of the femi-nazis intimidating cowardly men who lack the backbone to do what's right.
Women, and most especially feminists, know very well that a man's life can be destroyed by one accusation of rape, and that is precisely why most of those who lie go through with the unjust prosecution of innocent men. Female attorney Jonna Spilbor summed it up very well when she commented on a sexual assault case:
"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 accusedfrom 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
All the time, you'll see reports from the mainstream media talking about how difficult false allegations make life for other women. The problem is that you almost never see anyone talk about how difficult this makes life for the falsely accused and men in general, and though Spilbor briefly makes mention of it (which I appreciate), she only addresses the woes of the average female citizen, but not the woes of the average male citizen when these liars unjustly prosecute innocent men.
Bruce Gross, the director of the University of South California's Institute of Psychiatry, Law, and Behavioral Science, points 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," Community of the Wrongly Accused, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [cotwa.info/p/false-rape-allegations-assault-on.html]
Don't misunderstand, he's not saying it's a waste to free the innocent men, but the woman is wasting resources. Our judicial system is not free; she should have to pay the state back money for the resources she cost the tax payers. These women are wasting our time and money on their personal vendettas, and destroying the lives of those around them through their selfishness and bigotry.
So these men's lives are destroyed completely by women who couldn't keep their mouths shut, and so what punishment befalls these women who lie? Gross continues:
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," Community of the Wrongly Accused, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [cotwa.info/p/false-rape-allegations-assault-on.html]
I firmly agree with this, that not only do we not have a clear legal definition of a "false rape allegation," due to the lack of concern for men's rights in this country, but the women, most especially the feminists in their quest for so-called "equality," need to suffer the consequences men suffer. The way to solve this problem is, in cases where a woman is proven to have lied about her rape allegation, for her to suffer the penalties (prison sentences and fines) that the man would have had to suffer if he had been convicted of the crime he did not commit.
Sadly, most researchers and reporters today won't touch this topic because they know it is easy for them to lose their jobs if they dare question feminism. (This is why some of this research is decades old.) I have also concluded this is why most of the churches, ministries, and pastors stay away from this topic as well; they know that such vile controversy is not good for their popularity, and likewise, their income, so they'll choose to appease the masses to fatten their wallets.
(Read "Is Tithe a Christian Requirement?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
According to the feminists, we live in a society that focuses only on men, and benefits only men, but isn't it strange that we see no mention of male rape? Up until 2013, the FBI definition of rape excluded men altogether, 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
femaleforcibly and against herwill.' Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offensesthat 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]
All we ever typically hear about through news, movies, books, and music is the forced violation of women in rape, but we almost never hear about men being raped. Isn't it odd, in a so-called "patriarchal society" feminists keep whining about, that men are being ignored and forgotten as victims of sexual violence? The FBI's former definition of rape was developed in 1927 while they were gathering statistics on rape data, and so for almost 90 years 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're 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 drugsor 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 vaginalsex with you?"
-A. Rosay & D. Wood, "Alasak Victimization Survey," Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2010/1004.avs_2010/1004.06.avs.dhss2.pdf]
We've already covered the absurdity of women not being responsible for their actions when they choose to drink alcohol, but I want to focus on the fact that they specifically asked about "vaginal" sex. The document goes on to ask specifically if they had been raped by a man's "penis," and refer only to vaginal sex or anal or oral sex via the penis. The point I'm making here is that men are 100% excluded from consideration of being raped by the definitions used in this document.
Under the illusion of the feminist fantasy of a "patriarchal society," men being sexually assaulted by a woman is not considered to be rape, but we need to question why that is. 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, that is an error in reasoning.
"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, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/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 the Lord God designed our bodies to react in certain ways due to specific stimulation. If someone was to argue that a woman was not raped because she showed signs of arousal during the encounter, people would lose their minds in rage because they know that arousal is a natural, involuntary physiological response to stimuli, but that doesn't mean she wanted it. Both males and females can be aroused and even orgasm during rape encounters, and so the argument that males can't be raped because they got an erection is simply false. (It is because of involuntary arousal that rape can be so traumatic for the victim; linking a feeling of pleasure with the feelings of fear, anger, and terror.)
The sexual violence survey given by the CDC in 2010 decided to include men for the first time; the survey interviewed 7,421 men, and the results turned out that
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 1-2, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf])
There are countless rape abuse centers and rape victim organiziations that offer help and counseling to women who have been raped, but there are very few that offer help and counseling to men who have been raped. (What a strange patriarchy we have that doesn't care what happens to men; isn't that odd?) Many people forget about young men and boys, and according to the CDC survey, "More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 2, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf])
I've looked at news reports concerning molestation and rape cases by Catholic priests of young boys, a situation so common, most people have heard of it. In all the news reports I've seen, there are details describing the incidents, the rapist, and the court room trials, but one thing I've never seen in any of the reports I've looked at is relief, help, or counseling for the young boys; in fact, they're almost never mentioned, and this kind of ignoring male victims, especially in rape cases, has always been normal in the U.S., and helps to minimize and enable the rape of young men.
The above CDC report also specifically points out that they only surveyed domestic cases, 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," so even just considering prison rape, which is incredibly common in male prisons, how can we get an accurate number of comparison for male vs female rape? While feminists keep squawking in defiance of the facts, we'll never know, and they'll keep the public ignorant about such matters by falsely claiming they're fighting for "equality."
"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]
Feminist intimidation 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 Sept 7, 2016, [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, [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 Sept 7, 2016, [nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001HealingHands.pdf])
|Why is it that our society mostly ignores prison rape? Because prisons are mostly made up of men. So much for that "male privilege" we keep hearing so much about.|
The above author correctly points out that people make jokes about men getting raped in prisons all the time, so why is it that no one makes jokes about women getting raped? Why is it a tragedy when a woman gets raped, but it's "normal" when a man gets raped? Again, where is that "equality" feminists keep regurgitating to us?
The estimated number of domestic rape/sexual assault cases in the U.S. as of 2008 was 203,830, but obviously the numbers should be much less when factoring in "unfounded" vs "false" reports. The estimated number of rape/sexual assault cases among U.S. prison inmates alone was 209,400, which is mostly made up of men. Now, hopefully, readers can see why I suspect that rape among men in the U.S. is greater than rape among women in the U.S., but until researchers are free from threat of losing their jobs over the supposed "crime" of offending femi-nazis, we won't 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 Sept 7, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.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 Sept 7, 2016, [nybooks.com/articles/2013/10/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence])
Though the Bible is very clear on the sin of sodomy and homosexuality (i.e. it is condemned), most people forget lesbians in these figures because they think it's not possible for women to rape. This is not true; 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 huge numbers of lesbians, and I would say a strong percentage of the those in the feminist movement are lesbians, or become lesbians after joining the organizations. 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.
Such truths are despised, meaning that feminists don't want to hear about it. It not only disproves feminist arguments, but more importantly, it is supporting evidence that God's Word is true when He tells us about such people:
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, 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.
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
However, in this video, Warren Farrell describes a survey he was hired to conduct 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. |
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
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."
Women don't want to hear that the "female oppression" that they've been educated to believe doesn't actually exist because that indicates that they are not victims. Victim status implies a right to compensation, attention, and sympathy, and women really like those things. When they find out that men have been working hard for them, that men have been the victims and he deserves to be honored and reverenced in the position of husband and father, they would then have to confess personal responsibility, and that's abhorrent to a feminist.
Speaking of free compensation for "victimhood" status...
"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 Sept 23, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA]
Everyday Feminism Magazine tells women what most of you in American (and some other countries around the world) have heard many times before, that women only make about 77 cents to every dollar a man earns, and they refer to this as "the wage gap." This is absolute propaganda, and we're going to unravel this brainwashed lie to show the problem with their arguments and 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 Sept 23, 2016, [everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-78-cents-wage-gap-means])
The author (of the article I just referenced to) refers readers to the National Committee on Pay Equity, which displayed a chart (as of Sept of 2016 when I looked at it) of average salary earnings by men and women that has been reported by the Census Bureau from 1960 to 2015. It showed a progression of women in the 1960s making 60 cents on the dollar, up to almost 80 cents on the dollar on average in 2015. The problem is that this chart considers no other variables other than direct average salary earnings, but as we've already seen, feminists ignoring thorough research and statistical analysis is nothing new.
(See National Committee on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap Over Time: In Real Dollars, Women See a Continuing Gap," retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [pay-equity.org/info-time.html])
The original statistic that was quoted for this "77 cents on the dollar" gap was the U.S. Current Population Survey Labor Force Statistics from 2009, which was republished in the Institute for Women's Policy Research publication in Sept of 2010. It specifically states that men earn an average of $47,127, while women only earn an average of $36,278, which comes out to a difference of 23%.
(See Institute for Women's Policy Research, "The Gender Wage Gap: 2009," #C350, September, 2010, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-2009])
The only thing this survey did was take the average earnings of all men and the average earnings of all women, and compare the two. There was NO study nor analysis to go along with the stats 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.
To help understand this problem, let's look at work statistics by age according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics published in July of 2016, in which they reported that women between the ages of 16-24 averaged weekly earnings of $492, whereas women 45-54 had weekly earnings of $829. If feminists were to stay consistent in their arguments, they would have to say this is pure "ageism" bias against teenage workers, and then fight for teenagers' right to earn as much as a 54-year old. This is clearly absurd because we all know the average earnings for an older person is because they have more work experience and dedication (among other factors), and they are naturally worth paying more for the work they perform, but this logical approach is abandoned when it comes to feminism.
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers Second Quarter 2016," U.S. Department of Labor, July 19, 2016, USDL-16-1492, p. 1, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf])
Another interesting point to consider is 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):
The BLS also found that in 2010, more women worked when they were never married, divorced, separated, or widowed, than they did if they were married with children. This simply indicates that women, when they get married and have children, make different life choices than men do, which is 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 Oct 14, 2016, [bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf])
So what specifically causes non-married men to earn more than married men? The fact is that women don't like to live in a cardboard box and prefer to have nice things like a home, a car, kitchen appliances, furniture, and other things that will help her prepare to bring children into the world, and a man feels a desire as a dutiful, loving husband to do whatever he can to give his wife opportunity to achieve those goals, so typically, he works and she cares for the home. Someone has to be at home if the home is to be cared for, and in most cases, the woman is given the liberty and privilege to stay home.
What's shocking to most U.S. citizens in their ignorance is that about 25 years ago, statistics showed that never-married women earned MORE than never-married men. The U.S. Bureau of the Census records showed the exact median earnings for women were $46,896, and men were $39,996, but Warren Farrell, ex-feminist and former board of director for the National Organization of Women wrote:
There was no category in which the never married men earned equally to the never married women... I began investigating this in 1990. The gap was about the same then--[never-married] women earned 116% of what their [never-married] 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
To get into more details, let's look at total hours worked because men, in general, work more full-time and over-time jobs than women, and women, in general, work more part-time jobs than men. According to an Indiana University Department of Sociology study, 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 Sept 27, 2016, [mypage.iu.edu/~cha5/Youngjoo_Cha_files/Cha_weeden.pdf]
To help us understand this point (and the problem with the "wage gap" propaganda), let's make it simple by comparing a married husband and wife who both work for the same company, both make $10 per hour, and both work 40 hours per week, for a total of $400 in weekly earnings. The company needs extra help because a key employee quit, and offers 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's not including bonus pay for overtime.)
Can you see the problem now? There is no "wage gap" where the woman makes less than the man; she's making exactly the same amount of money, but the man puts in more work hours. These factors do not get taken into consideration in these statistics because no studies and surveys are being conducted to determine the reasons for the variables.
As I stated earlier, women, in general, work more part-time than full-time. This is not because they don't have access to full-time work, but rather it's because men and women are not the same, and women usually make different life choices than men:
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 assumedthat 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 needsas 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 Sept 27, 2016, [berkeleyjournal.org/2016/03/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
In fact, women have been incentivized for working part-time instead of full-time because women (on average) actually 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 Sept 27, 2016, [businessinsider.com/women-consistently-earn-more-than-men-in-part-time-jobs-2013-11]
This means there's a "wage gap" that's biased against men in part-time jobs, so why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why aren't feminists screaming out in protest that they make more money than men in part-time work, and demanding equal pay for men? Sarcastically speaking, God forbid that I, a lowly man, should call out the hypocrisy of feminists.
I want readers to understand that there is a big difference between equality in opportunity, and equality in RESULTS. I once listened to a feminist argue that women make up 50% of the population, but only 25% of seats in Congress, but the problem was that she was not considering that women typically do not choose to go into political fields as much as men. In short, many feminists are completely blinded that they are actually angry that more women are not choosing the particular fields of work and making the particular life choices that feminists want them to make, which is pressuring women to give up their liberty to make their own choices, and instead pander to the whims of feminists.
Please don't misunderstand, this isn't some rebuke on mothers, as feminists typically do when they condemn stay-at-home moms. On the contrary, I give praise to the Lord God that some of you women have chosen to be responsible and dedicated mothers, who don't jump into full-time employment, because you can't be a great business woman and a great mother at the same time. (There simply isn't enough time in the day!)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics published the following statistics for 2015:
Feminists lie to women and tell them they can have it all, but you can't be a good mother as a full-time career woman because in order to be a good mother, you have to be present with your children. It's ludicrous that I have to say this, but in effort to unbrainwash women in our society it's important to note: The fact is that you cannot be a good mother to your children if you aren't with them.
The same could be said for a full-time position, for example, if a woman is a manager of a restaurant, she cannot be a good manager if she's not there. So women have to choose: Either you be a good mom, or you be a good manager, but you can't have both, and I praise God for the women who choose to do what God designed them to do, which is to be the caretaker of the home and family.
Still, feminists howl about their disadvantage in the work place, claiming all the high-paying jobs are taken by men. Men are dominating a lot of the higher-paying careers, but that's because men more often choose those higher-paying careers than women do, because again, women typically make different life choices than men, and men are generally more willing to suffer high-stress employment to provide for his family.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics employment is often called STEM jobs, and it is claimed that these jobs are biased in favor of men. Men more often choose to go into STEM careers, and less women seem to want those jobs, however, recent studies have shown us it has nothing to do with women not being allowed into those fields:
"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 Sept 14, 2016, [pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract]
Once again, the feminists are wrong because women are actually afforded MUCH greater opportunities to be hired into prestigious fields of work in STEM jobs than are men, but fewer women are choosing a career in those higher-paying fields. Both men and women who looked over the test applications choose women over men more than 65% of the time. It's fascinating 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 against men, which is what we call a "matriarchy," not a patriarchy.
So another reason for the supposed "wage gap" is that men are choosing careers in higher-paying work, whereas women are not. The bottom line is if feminists want to complain that the higher paying jobs are all dominated by men, then I say to them: choose a different career path into high-paying STEM jobs, and then you won't have a need to complain because they're hiring women 2:1 over men. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)
The following are statistics published by the Council of Graduate Schools, and they showed that women are actually dominating over men in earning degrees from accredited colleges:
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 Sept 23, 2016, [cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GEDReport_2012.pdf]
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]
What an amazing coincidence that 23% wage gap feminists whine about is almost exactly the difference in pay between STEM and non-STEM jobs. Obviously, this is not coincidence, but it's still only one of the major contributing factors to explain the difference between the average salaries of men and women. Notice also that STEM jobs require more full-time work, which women generally tend not to prefer.
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's a bias in colleges that prevents women from getting a degree in these fields; it's because most women don't want to take those kinds of jobs. Women more often prefer jobs with people relation and interaction, which generally pay less, and they also prefer more comfortable settings and less mental/physical stress conditions that would be required to perform day-to-day tasks, which is why jobs like construction workers and garbage collectors are dominated by men.
Garbage collecting is a good 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 made close to $60,000 a year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates a rise of 7 percent of available jobs for this industry over the next 8 years (from 2016-2024), which means there's incredible opportunity for women to become garbage collectors and get a piece of that man-dominated pie.
(See U.S. News & World Report, "Garbage Collector: Overview," retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/garbage-collector])
Yet, some strange mysterious force seems to keep women from applying to be garbage collectors--whatever could it be that keeps most women from taking on this high-paying career? New York City has 7,000 garbage collectors, and only 200 (less than 3%) of them are women. Manhattan has 426 sewage workers, and only 5 (1%) of them are women. I realize this might be a stereotype, but could it possibly be that almost all women, as far as I've ever known them, hate being dirty and smelly, and so they don't want jobs in which they will be dirty and smelly 90% of the time?
(See Kathleen Horan, "City Honors Female Garbage Collectors," WYNC, Mar 29, 2008, retrieved Sept 27, 2016 [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 Sept 27, 2016, [http://nydn.us/2d7ESEw])
The fact is that most people have no desire to work in smelly and dirty garbage and sewage, but everyone has a need to dispose of their garbage and sewage. Since this is a need that's in high demand, but few people want the job, we have to pay those people more money to make the job desirable, otherwise, no one will do it. Thus, men more often take higher-paying jobs than women do simply because men are generally more willing to sacrifice the pleasure of a fulfilling career in order to make more money, and often, it's for the benefit of the women and children in their lives.
It seems that feminists want "equality" when it comes to the nice, comfortable jobs, but don't want so much equality when it comes to the smelly, dirty, disgusting, and physically taxing jobs, which is fine; I have no problem with women not wanting to do tough work, I just have a problem with spoiled brats (i.e. feminists) whining about their imagined woes. Concerning the absurdly foolish statements of feminists I quoted at the beginning of this article, who want the world to be rid of 90% or more of men, 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.
Women also tend to avoid jobs that have the highest risk of injury and death. In 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a total of 4,679 work-related deaths, and of those, 4,320 (92%) were male, and 359 (8%) were female.
We have many women who love to have electricity in their homes, but don't want to be coal miners. We have many women who love to eat seafood, but don't want to be fisherman. We have many women who love to have the radio, but don't want to climb the towers and do repairs. We have many women who love to have clean windows in their comfortable offices, but don't want to climb the outside of a high-rise building to wash them. Based on my own observations in my life, I have found that most 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 especially women, because most American women don't even know what it takes to provide light and clean water because they've never had to suffer without it thanks to the men behind the scenes upkeeping it constantly.
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. There are some safer jobs that men still have more jobs in, like the arts, but included in the arts are things like graphic design that involve more math-related skills, which women typically choose not to study in college.
The far left 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 the majority of healthcare workers are not nurses working in hospitals as some people might imagine; most are CNAs to help with menial tasks like cleaning or moving patients in nursing homes. (e.g. One certified nurse will oversee 10-20 CNAs in a ward.)
Author, radio host, and country singer, Jim Goad refers to a "glass coffin," which is a much better metaphor to contrast the feminist propaganda of a "glass ceiling," in which they claim women can see the top but never reach it. In fact, the "glass coffin" is that women can see the death happening to men, but can safely walk across their dead bodies:
"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]
The fact is that the higher the risk and higher demand of a job, the more it pays, which is why a high-rise construction worker will earn a greater salary than a secretary in most cases. 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 work in the context of the 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 a construction worker.
However, what feminists are attempting to do through the "wage gap" argument is pass legislation that will (via a communist government) force employers to pay secretaries the same as the 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 hopefully should now demonstrate to readers the true deception behind their movement because it means that feminists don't want to do the same amount of high-risk and high-demand work, they just want the same amount of pay without the responsibility.
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 rule (i.e. yowling feminists) demands equality in "their possession, their opinions, and their passions," then the entire structure of our nation will be destroyed. I discuss this issue in greater detail in our article, "Should Christians Vote?" and I would encourage readers to visit that page if you want an in-depth study on that subject.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Again, the true definition of feminism:
|The feminist movement is an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their choices.|
So again, this concept is very simple: The reason women generally make less is because they make different life choices, and the life choices women make will determine the career choices women make. 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;" in the U.S., that almost never happens. (i.e. The only time that may happen is if men and women are hired for a job that requires a lot of physical lifting, women obviously can't do as much as men, so men would be paid more.)
The abillity to earn more is driven by a number of factors, some of those we've already listed, but to give an example, I used to work a job in which we would move someone's belongings. We went to a home, and they paid us to pack up and move everything in their house (dishes, clothes, furniture, etc). I don't have as much muscle as the guys I was hired to work with, which means I did not have the same physical strength, and because of that, I did not make as much on the hour as they did.
So because I didn't make as much on the hour as the other employees, does that mean I was discriminated against? No. Should I have sat around whining to the government that I didn't get paid as much? No. I didn't make as much because I didn't do the same amount of work as the other employees, which means I got paid what I was worth based on the type and amount of work I performed, and the same goes for women.
Concerning various industries that take on employees, most women won't (and in some cases can't) do the same type of work men do, and most women choose not to do as much work as a man does. This can also be seen in women who own their own business:
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, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [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 Oct 6, 2016, [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 (e.g. paying employees more, saving capital for investments, etc), and the reasons for this "income gap" between male and female business owners has nothing to do with discrimination against women because most consumers don't even know who owns and operates the business they shop. She's her own boss, so her own work determines how much money she makes, and that's precisely what the American Express study discovered in their survey:
"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?" retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [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. For example, if she wants to have children, it is nearly impossible to be a good mother that engages and educates her children, AND run a full-time business simultaneously. (i.e. Again, you must choose to either be a successful mother, or a successful business woman, but you can't be both.)
Yet, the White House helps feminists push propaganda by publishing photos like this:
I would challenge readers to go online and look up similar propaganda images, and you'll notice that, in most instances, they always show a woman on the phone, sitting at a comfortable desk, writing or typing. They almost never show these women doing incredibly risky, dirty, or strenuous labor. Why not? Because the entire purpose of this propaganda is to get people to think the "wage gap" is because a female taking phone calls makes 23% less than a male taking phone calls, and they don't want people to start thinking the difference in pay has to do with women not wanting to do the same work as men in various high-risk, high-demand jobs.
|Statistics in the U.S. have shown that 91% of construction workers are male. 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're driving through a construction zone; look for how many women you see, and if you see any, look for what type of job they're performing on the site--that will tell you everything you need to know about the illusionary "wage gap."|
I found another online e-card with feminist propaganda, so I made a counter version to show readers the difference between the propaganda and reality. Again, people don't enjoy strenuous labor or dying very much, 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 is a list of 17 questions based on what affects how much money a man or woman makes, and why men earn more. I would like the reader to consider everything we've learned so far, and consider the men and women that you've personally known in your life for each one. The answer to each of these questions will determine if you make more or less money at your job, and the more of them that require a "yes" answer, the more money you'll make:
Here's an important question to consider: 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 didn't discriminate would be making HUGE profits over the other companies.
If it's 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 don't find this in the U.S. because the entire "wage gap" argument is a hoax.
Another problem with the "wage gap" that most people don't consider is that this whole argument is really about over what is called "power." The term "power" in this context is really authority and control. Feminists believe that it is men who have all the authority and control because they make more money, but I'd like to pose a scenario between two people and let you decide who has the power.
Person #1 works for a corporation that tells that person when to get up and when that person can go to bed. The schedule that person receives also dictates when they can eat, when they can take a break, and how much work they must get done.
Person #2 stays at home, allowing them to decide when to get up and when to go to bed. The person dictates when they can eat, when they can take a break, and how much work they must get done.
So who has the power, the authority and control, over their life, #1 or #2? Anyone would have to lie to themselves to say that person #1 has the power, and the only true way that a man, who more often becomes a corporate slave so the woman can stay at liberty in her home, maintains authority and control in his home is when his wife, in loving, dutiful, and Biblical manner, humbles and submits herself to his authority willingly, which brings us to the next section...
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.
It might be easier to understand it 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 help us understand it:
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 Oct 7, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])
|If women will focus themselves on Christ, and find a righteous man to be a help meet to him, they will be much happier and more content.|
Next, it's important to look at the fall of mankind to get a better idea of why we are the way we are. 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.
Many people don't understand that the New Testament explains more details. Within the church specifically, women are not permitted to be leading authorities or teachers (i.e. women can teach in other areas, just not in authority over the church), and the reason for this goes back to the event at the tree of knowledge:
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
Adam had full knowledge of what he was doing; he wasn't deceived like Eve was, which means he understood the punishment he would have to suffer for eating it. So 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 shows 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;
No matter what society they live in, it is generally automatically assumed that men will be the provider for a family. As we can see from the stats listed in the previous sections of this article, men more often take higher-risk, higher-stress, and more time-consuming work in order to provide for the family, and the Bible tells men that's the way it ought to be, that he would be willing to give his life for his wife, either through physical protection from danger that may end in his immediate death, or giving his life in the manner of working hard to provide.
This is also reflected in God's punishment to Adam and Eve for their transgression:
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;
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.
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
One of the major reasons feminism has grown by leaps and bounds over the past century is that wives have refused to give their husbands authority. If Eve had listened to the serpent, then turned to Adam as the authority over her and said, "What do you think we should do," we might not be in this position today.
The feminists are working very hard right now to destroy the role of the wife and mother in the home, and as a result, the role of men is being destroyed. When men learn how hard they actually have it in this society, as I statistically demonstrated earlier, and that they've been lied to about "male privilege" that doesn't exist, they tend to get angry, but whereas many feminists and other women have wanted to take more and more from men, the men I've talked to and listened to, despite their anger, don't want to take anything away from women because they want to fulfill their role as a provider and protector.
With some exceptions, most men want women to have privilege. Men want women to get help and assistance as they need, and they don't want to see women suffer. The sad part is that men's organizations that are growing in number are starting to get men to speak up about their own wants and desires, encouraging them to do what they want to do instead of what needs to be done, but this is folly.
The reason men's organizations are beginning to do this is because most of them believe in the religious philosophy of Evolutionism, and so they say: Men had to be the provider and women had to be the homemaker because that's what we had to do to survive since the days of the caveman. So what they want to do is give men more opportunities to be free to do whatever they want, instead of focusing on being a provider and working the long overtime hours.
I'm not against men sharing their desires, nor pursuing things they want to do, but there's much easier way to solve this problem, and that's by getting rid of the pagan, destructive, and non-sensical Evolutionism religious philosophy. Instead, we should embrace Biblical understanding. Men are willing to work hard, and sacrifice their lives for their women, but what they need is for the wife to accept HER own role by submitting herself to be the assistant to her husband under his authority, as it explains very clearly in Ephesians 5.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself... For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
respect (v): to regard, to look towards
reverence (v): fear mingled with respect and esteem; veneration
(See 'help' & 'meet', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 7, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])
Husbands are willing to make sacrifices, giving up his personal desires for the sake of his wife, but when resentment enters the wife, and she refuses to acknowledge the sacrifices he is making for her sake, he starts driving him away. I grew up all the time hearing about how much women do, how much women sacrifice, how much mothers do, how she doesn't get paid for her work, but I almost never heard anyone in my home, school, or church acknowledge how much work my dad was doing, and how much he provided for the family at home.
I think it's important to note that my dad wasn't perfect, and not only did he not engage with his children much (nor at all intellectually), but there was also physical and verbal abuse going on in our house. However, he worked many 16 hour days to put food on the table, to make sure we had a comfortable home to grow up in, and that we were educated (to the small degree a public school student can actually learn anything). The point I'm making is that the "bad-mouthing" of men was quite common in our household (especially with two older sisters to throw into the mix), which firmly taught me feminist philosophy as a young boy, and my family had no idea at the time what consequences that would have on myself and my brother. (That's a long story for another time.)
When young girls are learning from their mothers, sisters, school, church, television, books, and music that "I don't need a man" and "I'm an independent woman," then she rejects the Biblical role of men. This philsophy makes it incredibly difficult for the girl to grow up to have a good marriage because she's already rejected the role of the man before she's married him, and often, the friction of conflict in the household leads to divorce because she's become what the Bible calls a "brawling woman."
It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
Women who have had good fathers typically don't say, "I hate my father," women who have good husbands typically don't say, "I hate my husband," and women who've experienced being around good men don't say, "I hate men." Let's consider a hypothetical example of a white woman who has a loving relationship with her adopted black father; it would not make any sense at all for her to say "All blacks are evil," when she has a loving relationship with a black man, and likewise, it makes no sense for a woman to say "All men are evil" when she has a loving relationship with a good man, which means most feminists have grown up without any loving influence of a righteous, God-fearing man.
The question we really have to consider is: How can a woman develop a loving relationship with a man when she hates men? Feminists will never develop loving relationships with men for the same reason KKK members will never develop loving relationships with black people. (i.e. It's called sexism.)
In addition, many of these feminists CHOSE bad men, or their mothers chose bad men, or sometimes they chose good men but refused wifely/motherly responsibilities, so the good men left, but in most of today's feminist cases, they choose poorly and refuse to accept responsibility for their choices. (i.e. The man is blamed for everything because they believe women can do no wrong.) In the U.S., women have a choice of who they marry; they're not forced into it. Women have a choice to have sex outside of marriage, and they also have a choice of who they have sex with. These choices have consequences, and American women today are so pampered, they believe they deserve the privilege to make bad choices without suffering the consequences, and they need hard working fathers and husbands in their lives to teach them proper responsibility.
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 protector role is indirectly mentioned in Genesis because I believe that Adam took the fruit on purpose to try and save his wife, knowing what she had done (because Adam was not deceived), and so that he would not have to be parted from her. The problem in the U.S. today is that feminists are infecting the education of young men that they must be like girls, instead of teaching them their Biblical role, and when they can't fulfill their roles, they have little motivation to want to marry women, which is what we're seeing more and more of in our country when we hear the common phrase, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
We have a female-dominated society, in which a young boy grows up with a high percentage chance of never knowing or seeing his father. He's raised in a female-dominated household, then goes to a female-dominated school with a mostly female staff, who give the boys grades based on how female they can act, and then our government and schools sit in blind confusion, wondering why so many young men are joining gangs to try and find a male role model.
It's actually old news that fatherless homes are leading an ever-growing number of inner-city boys to join gangs to seek male influence and guidance they can't get in the home:
"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 Oct 15, 2016, [newsofthesouth.com/young-men-seeking-role-models-and-fathers-in-wrong-places]
A teachers' union got together to discuss the causes for getting into 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 freedomwere 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 Oct 15, 2016, [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 roles the father is vital in administering to young men. 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 proves that single moms are simply incapable of completely fulfilling the role of dads.
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 Oct 17, 2016, [webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk#1]
The sad part about this article is that they insist on staying "politically correct" and not mentioning the fact we've already established in this article, that most single-parent homes are single MOMS, not single dads. Due to the cowardice of authors fearing the blowback, they don't want to point out the major problem of women divorcing men 2 to 1 in America, and that "single-parent" households are mostly women. The issue of a man dying at work or in the military has been a factor in creating a single-mother household, but when children realize their father died and literally cannot be with them, the suicide rates are not the same as children with mothers who have chosen to get rid of their husbands.
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:
Children growing up without fathers are much more likely to turn to alcohol and drugs to deal with their inner pain:
"[Deane Scott] Beman (1995) [in 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.
Young women, do you want to increase the risk of your child suffering clinical depression? If not, you need a father in the house. Do you want to increase the risk of your child becoming addicted to drinking and smoking? If not, you need a father in the house. Do you want to increase the risk of your child growing up in poverty? You need a father in the house because even if you work a job to make more money, you won't be with your child. (i.e. parentless child) We need to stop this devilish propaganda that young women hear today (e.g. "I don't need a man") because both mothers and fathers need to be in the home, working in their individual roles as a unit, to have a healthy family.
|You need a dad, or things go bad.|
Certainly, you can survive without a father. Many homes have had to suffer the father dying, and they have survived, but over the years, the statistics I've read have shown that children that grow up with a father who died do significantingly better than children who grow up with a dad who left them.
The feminists love to brainwash the world into thinking there is an overall contempt for women in our society, and that men despise and use women at every given opportunity. The truth (as I demonstrated earlier) is that most men love women, and 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, and they definitely want women to be ignorant of that fact so they can continue to act like victims.
As a side note, one of the reasons I didn't mention earlier of why feminists want to destroy the housewife and mother in America is because feminists don't like competition. The father of a household has a big executive job, and so does the feminist, but the difference between them is that the man has a woman at home to support him. The man's wife is an incredibly valuable asset, and feminists can't have an asset like the housewife, so she wants to destroy the man's advantage in the work force, but we need to keep in mind that the wife is only advantage to the husband if she fulfills her Biblical role and steps back to WILLINGLY allow the man to fulfill his Biblical role.
Because the world maintains Evolutionism philosophy ('way of thinking'), they falsely believe that what makes a man male or a woman female is their genitalia (i.e. penis/testicles or vagina/ovaries). The problem with this is that they believe the male and female roles have developed from the genitals they've received, but this is backwards.
Surgical reconstruction is developing more exotic variations with each passing year, and it would not surprise me that in the near future, people start having surgery to make themselves look like animals, however, the same philosophical problems still apply. 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.
Once you're born a woman, you'll always be a woman, no matter what you allow someone to do to your body with a scalpel. Once you're born a man, you'll always be a man, no matter what you allow someone to do to your body with a scalpel. What's sad is that if God gives them repentance to acknowledge the truth, and they wake up one day and realize what they've done, in many instances, there's no returning what was lost. A person can have their body mutilated to look like another gender, change their clothing, change their hair, or anything else, but it won't matter because their core gender still exists, and whether or not they keep and accept the tools God gave them to fulfill that role is their choice.
The last time I heard the question, "Where would you men be without us women?" my response was, "In the Garden of Eden." Indeed, this is an answer that can make some people feel uncomfortable because it puts women back in their place, to remind them of where we all came from, why we are the way we are today, and what women ought to be, to allow men to be what they ought to be. Our roles were given to us by the authority of the Ever-Righteous, Almighty God, and He programmed us like this so that husbands and wives could function together in a way that produces healthy children who will learn righteous judgment and charity from Christ's Gospel that will save lives and souls.
Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
"[In feminism,] we do not see equal representation of men's and women's issues. Despite popular belief,
-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:
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.
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.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso trusteth in the LORD, happy is he.
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.
So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
(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 , 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 Goddessesmost 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
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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:
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:
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
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 singlein 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.
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.
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.
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
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, 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.
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
-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 PIGSKILL 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
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
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.