Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail. Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!
some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
Equal rights, equal duty. Did feminists fight for conscription for women?
One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds. Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.
Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features: There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures
Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line. Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ] Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. […] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.
And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.
Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.
Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards
Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
I found most of these articles through reddit.com/r/MensRights/. Highly recommended! Please mark my articles for reddit, digg, delicious etc too if you like them!
Consensual sex, followed by rape, followed by consensual sex
Every man is in danger of getting rape accusations at all times. From long term girlfriends, wives, dates, or strangers. Feminists made the world a mine field for men.
Just in case you don’t get the gist of this: the women agreed to several sex acts, then was raped once, and then did a few more consensual sex acts. And of course all this without corraborating evidence like videotapes or witnesses. No man can be safe, if he has a sex life. Except if he is gay.
Judge Lacava said after the consensual sex the pair had a shower together. While the woman was still in the shower Hronas made demands of her in a domineering voice. The woman became scared as Hronas’s voice and demeanour changed, the court heard. Judge Lacava said the rape was “spontaneous and opportunistic” but Hronas did not ask the victim’s consent. A jury found Hronas guilty of one count of rape. The court heard after the rape the pair engaged in further sex acts. http://www.smh.com.au/national/internet-date-led-to-sex-then-rape-20100730-10z4f.html
Poor Homeless Man’s inheritance confiscated to pay alimony for kid he did not father
The homeless man has his only chance in life to get money from an inheritance, but merciless feminists and a justice system slanted to help women at the expense of innocent men will destroy this guy’s chance at happiness and money.
Seventeen years later, in 2008, Tate asked the probate court to intercept tens of thousands of dollars Wilburn was about to inherit from his deceased mother, based on the 1991 support order. Wilburn’s family tracked down 22-year-old Alexis and asked her to take a DNA test, which excluded Wilburn as Alexis’ biological dad. Wilburn’s family hired an attorney, who filed a motion challening the support order. Alexis swore under oath that Wilburn never acted as her dad and she only saw him a few times in her life. The court denied the motion, ruling Wilburn should have challenged the order sooner, despite the fact that he was homeless and living under a bridge. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the order on the same grounds, and the California Supreme Court has now declined review. “This is totally unjust,” said Angelucci. “It is wrong to force a man person to pay child support for a child that is not his, especially when he never acted as the dad.” http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/211794
Innocent prisoner freed after 27 years
Cleared and released, Green still has questions for rape victim who misidentified him
This story and more shocking press news follow here
A very feeling movie, about men who are forbidden to see their kids. The movie is quite tame, it does not even mention that men of course have to pay half their income in exchange for not being allowed to see the kid.
The final version of the documentary about the discrimination against fathers in custody cases, and the mayhem it causes in our societies.
Produced by Sara Sivesson, Jerry Wallén, Sandra Atas and Oskar Krantz at the John Bauer high school in Sweden. The film was made as an entry in a Amnesty International contest regarding human rights.
Rumors are that women’s groups protested the movie and Amnesty International thus did not allow the movie in their contest. Another example of the amazing clout feminists wield to manipulate institutions to act in the feminist interest, making special rules and exceptions for feminist issues that the institution would never make for any other issues.
Amnesty sponsored a film competition, but when some finalists produced a film that angered feminists, the film was pulled from Amnesty’s YouTube site. Amnesty denies that pressure from an Uppsala women’s shelter was responsible for suppressing the film, but the shelter itself is gloating about its political clout.
The film, created by four high school students and titled, The Right To Be a Father, is a powerful depiction of how children are taken from their fathers by Sweden’s feminist family courts. Separating children from their fathers is not only a bedrock principle of the war against “patriarchy,” but also the bread-and-butter of the lucrative child custody industry, so it is not surprising that the sisterhood would come down hard on the heresy that feminists violate human rights.
The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. “But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty’s YouTube channel,” says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators. [. . . ]
