Musings on Books and Liberty

America is founded on the ideal of liberty. The root of liberty is liber, the Latin for book.

So why are library budgets some of the first things to be cut when counties have to downsize their budgets? Why do libraries get sidelined when people talk of important community assests?

The foundation of liberty is access to information. Libraries provide free information.

Support libraries, wherever they may be. Keep them up and running, through hard times and good times. Take books out. Learn something. Upkeep the foundations of our country's ideal.

Support our country. Read.

The Terror of Information Loss

I just finished reading This Book Is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All by Marilyn Johnson.

It talked of how librarians keep people informed and able to navigate on the search for information. It was all very interesting, but while reading it I discovered something about myself I should have already known.

I cannot stand information loss.

Stories of book burning make my insides twist up. I scream inside my head when I hear of people throwing out collections of old publications. My heart hurts when I click on a bookmarked link and the web page comes up as nonexistent.

All information is valuable, all information deserves to be learned. My favorite part of the book comes when the author talks about people's outstanding actions are archivists. Archivists are usually very specific, but they save so much. Things people would think have no value; the flyers from concerts, the maps from fairs, newspaper articles on prizefights. These people go around knowing very specific information that not many others know.

It occurred to me that everyone is an archivist. Everyone has something they know a lot about. Write it down. Keep it safe. Tell others so the information is never lost.

Everyone is also a librarian. They can tell you where to find information. They can direct you to the best sources to discover what they don't know on a topic. Don't keep it hidden from others. Tell them how to find what they don't know.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I tried to find a word for this love of knowledge and the need to preserve it. Would you believe that I could not find one?

So I had to create one: gnosiphile; from the Greek gnosis, "knowledge" and philos "loving".

If you are a gnosiphile:

• Keep copies of printed material on whatever your interest is.
• Keep screenshots of web pages (go to Page on the toolbar, go down to Save As) of the same.
• Print out information on it from the Internet.
• File it.
• Tell others of your knowledge.
• Encourage others to do the same.

Information should never be lost. Information is too important to be forgotten.

Preserve it.

Abortions, Conditions, and Suicide

"Of course not, I'd go even further and say that we should try to actively decrease the incidences of these diseases. I would abort a fetus if I knew that there was a high probability that it would develop schizophrenia or autism. I don't want to raise an autistic kid, and it would be immoral of me to create a human being who was going to develop a disease that causes such psychic torture that 10% of the people with the disease successfully kill themselves. I also wouldn't care if parents aborted their fetuses to prevent homosexuality because fetuses aren't people. They could abort one for having blue eyes for all I care. "

Posted on the INTJ Forum, under the Is it moral to use abortion to prevent unwanted conditions? thread, by phoboser.

Homosexuality, autism, and schizophrenia are not diseases. You cannot catch them. Therefore, they are conditions. The suicide rate is from psychic torture caused by persecution, not by the condition itself.

The only reason for an abortion is if the parent is unable to care for the child in some way, whether that way be physically, mentally, or emotionally.

France considers banning the burqua

NBC says France claims burquas are a sign of Islamic radicalism; CNN says that France claims "the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity" and has nothing to do with religion.

Either way, I say France is wrong. The idea should be that no woman is forced to wear a burqua or an abaya or any other form of covering unless they want to. France's idea is that there are no burquas, period. That's just as wrong in my mind as some Middle Eastern country forcing a woman to wear one.

NBC's news report did include, to France's credit, that any man found forcing his wife to wear a burqua would be fined. If they just keep that part, I'll be happy with them.

CNN's report

Dead Body Warning

A Field Guide for Female Interrogators by Coco Fusco (interview here) is a disturbing book. I heard about the torture at Abu Graib, but I never heard about this.

The military decided to use their women soldiers to inflict sexualized torture on their Islamic POWs because they had decided that Muslim men were more likely too break under those sorts of conditions.

Let us examine what is wrong with this situation:

1. Torture. The obvious one.
2. Racism. The military assumed that the Islamic men would be more susceptible to sexualized torture because of ideas held by the radical sects.
3. Sexual assault/abuse of the Islamic men by the US Military women.
4. Degradation of the women involved in the sexual torture.
5. Perpetration of sexist stereotypes.
6. Military secrecy and lack of media coverage.

I shall assume that most, if not everyone, reading this agrees with the statement 'torture under any circumstances is wrong'.

Who else is tired of the military and the government in general profiling (IE stereotyping) Islamic/Middle Eastern people? First off, it assumes the fact that every Middle Eastern POW holds the idea that women's bodies are unclean in some way, as well as other sexist notions. The military believed this so much that they decided to use a special form of torture to get information. This of course discounts the fact that there are people who are able to lie under torture. Mostly, this is another example of how good the military is as epic fail. Time for a quote: "Much speculation has taken place over the last three years about whether the intelligence community developed these sexual tactics because of sexual stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs that have achieved the status of truisms in military circles. Veterans of military intelligence who received training in the early stages of the war have noted they received lectures on the so-called "Arab mind", in which it was argued that when it comes to sexuality, Muslim men are more vulnerable than Westerners. Outdated anthropological arguments become the basis for the development of tactics..."

The author of the book, Coco Fusco, is fond of saying that "when male interrogators perform such acts on non-consenting subjects it is understood as sexual assault, but when women do it, it can be authorized as invasion of space". Talk about a double-standard in reverse. The whole argument reminds me of the old idea that women are somehow paragons of virtue (so logically, they couldn't be let outside the home or given room to think for fear of spoiling them). When someone sexual insults another, "force them to engage in humiliating acts", force them to look at their exposed bodies, and perform sexual acts on them without their consent; it is generally understood as sexual abuse and assault (except the first, which is merely sexual harassment). Apparently, though, none of this applies when it is a women preforming them on an unconsenting man. Another quote: "...women interrogators use sexual insults, force them to engage in humiliating acts, and also preform sexually for them. Their most infamous antics include gyrating half-clothed atop seated prisoners and smearing them with fake menstrual blood in an attempt to break them by invoking cultural taboo."

Having talked of the problems of and with the Muslim prisoners, it is time to switch the focus to the US Military female interrogators. First off: it matters not to me that the interrogators agreed to use the sexual tactics. The point is that it is wrong and sexist. The very idea that women's bodies are again to be used as objects towards an end (never mind that its not social scoring this time) is exactly part of the problem with society today. Part of the tactic is sexual performance, which in this case sounds quite a bit like sexual exploitation of the women interrogators by the largely-male military command structure. All this is even neglecting to mention the "email responses to news stories about sexual abuse of detainees in which readers said they wished they could be "harassed" that way by female soldiers". Why yes, people regarded this more as some sort of pornography instead of as a crime against humanity. As Coco Fusco pointed out: "Detainees don't get to ask for what they get and don't know when it will stop. They don't get to say 'No means no'.

Then there's the fact that the military went and perpetrated stereotypes of women in the act of the torture. There is one interrogator that was very helpful: he said that the tactics included "using women as bait" and assuming the roles of "the bimbo who can't do her job" and "the sympathetic mother who wipes your tears". One of the interrogators at the interrogation camp that the author attended said that female interrogators could "elicit confessions best by pretending not to be interrogators at all, posing instead as nurses or even girlfriends". The military already has a history of sexist behavior towards women. This helps them none.

Part of the scandal with Abu Graib and also Gauntanamo is that the government did a cover-up of the torture. The part that could be constructed as marginally worse is the fact that the media did something similar. There was the coverage, and the debates about whether or not torture is acceptable. No one, as far as I remember, mentioned anything about sexualized torture or women being involved in any way. As the media is a terribly important source of information for many, many people, this too, could be constituted as a cover-up.

I am sorely disappointed that this was my hundredth post.

A picture of a dead man for your viewing pleasure.

I resent these remarks

Who has heard of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder? It affects millions of women around the globe, mostly from raising children, having careers, cleaning, cooking, working, and "several other things".

I shall assume these several other things involve everyday activities.

Mostly, the only discernible cause of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder that I can find is living. Seeing as how this affects women of "any age, race, or overall health", and is a "serious and damaging condition"; I can only conclude that there is something wrong with you if you don't feel the need to have sex with someone.

Especially given the existence of asexual people.

I take great offense to this, myself identifying as asexual. I resent being told something is wrong with me when I lead a perfectly healthy life with just friends and family. I have never had a boyfriend, girlfriend, or any other sort of partner you care to imagine. This has not affected me adversely in any way. In fact, I consider myself to live a rather better life than my peers. They are always having problems upon problems about dating and sex and emotional attachment. I do not.

Let's take a look at the definition of an asexual person as given by The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network:
"An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are. Asexuality does not make our lives any worse or any better, we just face a different set of challenges than most sexual people. There is considerable diversity among the asexual community; each asexual person experiences things like relationships, attraction, and arousal somewhat differently."

I would especially note the sections on arousal and attraction:
"Attraction: Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually. Instead we feel a desire to get to know someone, to get close to them in whatever way works best for us. Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or straight.
Arousal: For some sexual arousal is a fairly regular occurrence, though it is not associated with a desire to find a sexual partner or partners. Some will occasionally masturbate, but feel no desire for partnered sexuality. Other asexual people experience little or no arousal. Because we don’t care about sex, asexual people generally do not see a lack of sexual arousal as a problem to be corrected, and focus their energy on enjoying other types of arousal and pleasure."

I find it especially telling that it specifically says that "people do not need sexual arousal to be healthy" right after that.

So, therefore, this posited Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is either a) idiocy or b) a ploy for pharmaceutical companies to make money. I would choose c) both.

-

I find this whole idea offensive in other ways, as well. It again confirms society's fixation with sexuality (specifically female) and the still-lurking assumption that women should have sex, no matter what their body tells them. The fact of life is that it is much easier for a woman to not be interested in sex than it is for a man. Things like working and holding a job take up energy, energy that may have been used for sex but most likely would have gone toward things like organizing the house in activities like cleaning and cooking after work. Women's sexuality works differently from a man's, as well. For men, it takes only about three minutes before coital acts to become sufficiently aroused to reach orgasm; for women, the period is something in the order of a full twenty-four hours. The system is much more complex. Various emotional states need to met and certain neurochemicals, like oxycontin and serotonin, need to be released. With women who are taking care of children, especially babies and toddlers, these neurochemical and emotional needs may already have been satisfied by basic biological prompting. This, along with general exhaustion, explains why many new mothers feel no desire for sex of any kind.

Aside from difference in the system of sexuality, there is an underlying societal idea here too. Women are to have sex. That is what they are there for. This does not even address, of course, the double standard towards sex for the genders. With that note, I would like to address the fallacy that is "Low T".

One, just come out and say that it is low levels of testosterone. Two, admit that this is a natural thing in older men known as andropause, more popularly male menopause. Testosterone levels drop and estrogen goes up. Older men are more likely to enjoy cuddling, hugging, and intimate touch at this point in their lives. The sex drive decreases. This is naturally, yet these commercials that I see popping up all over the place seem to try and bill it as a life crisis. The website does concede the point that levels naturally rise and fall over the course of a man's life, but do the commercials say anything of this? No. How many people really look at the medical commercial's websites and how many just take the marketing ploys at face value?

-

I protest at both these so-called conditions. How many people already have socialized issues with their sexuality? How many people now, after seeing the advertisements for this, feel even worse about themselves and will suggest to their doctor that they begin taking unnecessary medication? How many doctors will prescribe unnecessary medication because the pharmaceutical companies pay them to get business?

How many people will develop actual problems from this idiocy, and how many people will never bother to try and take control of their sexuality and own their bodies because their "problems" can be medicated away?

Guess What!

Look here! My 'Tis the Season article was accepted on Womanist Musings as a guest post! Thank you Renee!

And a links dump:
What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped?
Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog
How English erased its roots to become the global tongue of the 21st century
Hate Speech Has A Cost
Transgender Blogs
15 Signs The US Has Permanently Lost Its Grip On The Western Hemisphere
When you transgress the gender binary
Girl Clothes
Let's Talk About Trans Faith
"Porn for Women" A Rant
Indian Women As Sex Objects
Buying A Trophy Orphan Is Just Part Of The Game
So Disgusting I Won't Even Type The Real Title
Five Things I Wish Gay Guys Knew About Me
Blackhawk Foe Waves Severed Head
When Studies And Debates Are Insulting
Welcome To Internalized Misogyny

'Tis the season

Its that time of year again. The National American Miss people are sending out flyers. Last year's I really didn't like, and this year's I found more issues with, after a year of paying attention to feminist blogs. Lets examine this:



First, the cover



Typical Euro-centric ideal of beauty? Check. Airbrushing? Check. "Fashionable"? Check. Vaguely pained look? Check. "Sexy" Posing? Check. Looks old enough to be the mother of the audience targeted? Why is she even on this thing?



The inside



EVEN MORE European girls? Check. Posing? Check. Now onto the highlighted stuff. That's were it gets really insidious.

• "Makeup is not allowed on our participants ages 4-12 during the event." Well, that sure didn't stop you from airbrushing their pictures, did it?


• "The National American Miss pageants are dedicated to celebrating America's greatness and encouraging its future leaders." Apparently "America's greatness" is little pretty white girls. Also: to be a leader and a girl, you must be pretty. No two ways about it.


• "You'll gain... self-confidence...You'll feel good about yourself." Yes, I'm sure it will help boost the Hispanic girl from my old hometown who also received this flyer's self-confidence that the only girls pictured on the sides are clearly European and the overweight girl down the street will feel better about herself when all the girls there are thin.


• "If not accepted into the pageant..." Way to judge a girl on her looks when she's supposed to be a "future leader".


• "The total fee for the pageant is $440." Well, my goodness, that sure explains why there's pretty much just white girls on this! You only want people with half a thousand dollars lying around! Poor people, obviously, are ugly; and unfit to associate with you until they can cut food or utilities bills to pay for this.

And the back

Finally, some token racial diversity! Posing? Check. Airbrushing? Check. Ridiculously happy smiles? Check. People who are clearly models with their perfectly white teeth and shaped eyebrows who are surely not the sort of people who would actually be at this? Check.

One last highlighted thing:
"All you'll need is:

• A prom dress or evening gown
• A suit or dress for interview
• Official production number t-shirt outfit (available on pageant weekend for a nominal charge)"

Say it with me people: Hidden Costs! So lets say you manage to scrape up half a thousand dollars to go to this thing. Now they want you to buy a prom dress! And a suit! And a t-shirt for "a nominal charge"! Turns out you need more like another $430 there!

Total cost: $870. Way to raise the bar. Now they only want you if you've got about a thousand dollars lying around! Now I know why the popular pretty girls on TV are always rich whites! They're the only ones with enough money to be official.

Congratulations, National American Miss pageants. You have now officially sent the most racist and classist bit of mail I have ever seen.

Q: What People Should Really Learn From Student Government Elections?

A: How to learn when a politician is saying a whole lot of nothing.

My class's election for sophomore year officers could be a case study. Most of the speeches were uninteresting; but gave a good overview of what the person's goals and qualifications were. Then the speeches got to the presidential candidates and the only guy running for an office (significant or not?) got up. There was lots of cheering (he was a popular guy). But when he opened his mouth he had nothing to say. The summary of his speech is as follows:

"The other school thinks we suck! I don't think we do! We should show them we're not! I had fun doing this job in eighth grade! The other school thinks we suck!"

See? A whole lotta nothin'. There is a term for this sort of persuasion: pathos. This guy was trying to play off emotions and his popularity. Student government elections being as they are (popularity over competence), that was the guy who won.

Here's an idea: maybe if the SG elections actually matched what people learned in their government classes about how real elections work (and if the SG actually meant anything), people would be more invested in voting throughout their lives.

The Professors: The 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America

The author is David Horowitz.
A book review:

The author does manage to find some truly despicable people (mostly affirmed Jihadists, violent anti-whites, and convicted domestic terrorists). However, I find that most people in this book are not as extreme as those and a few choices are extremely laughable*. Also, most of the people in this book did not support the war on terror for various reasons; that coupled by the designation of nearly all the professors as liberals leads me to believe that the author is a dedicated conservative. Which, of course, would lead to bias on all cases, with the skew on people's views getting decidedly more negative the less extreme the case (in perspective).

Another thing that really stood out for me is that the author mentions feminism where applicable and fails to make any connection as to how this is relevant to the professor being dangerous. This lack leaves me with only the conclusion that the reader is to associate feminism with danger. The other thing was the lack of opposing viewpoints. If the author could find so may Jihadists, militant anti-whites, and domestic terrorists; surely he could locate anti-Muslims, anti-minorities, and American supremacists as well.


*Most of these people are proponents of Marxism or Leninism and/or take an anti-American stance. A continuing point made was opposition to the Vietnam war.

Cool website

Lexicalist- a demographic dictionary of modern American English

Let's look at some words real quick:

Sexism
Superheroes
Raven
Scholar
Books
Blog

I have more proof that Maine's politicians are the best.

Senator Olympia Snowe is highly respected (as we knew) and politicians should first serve the nation, then the state, then the voters (which my mother and I have known for quite some time).

Maine, I am proud of you.

EDIT: Video does not work, so I took it off. Here's the link.

Disappointed

I expected this minister to be more... open, I suppose.

Boys will be Boys- Women need to stop tempting men to sexual sin and society needs to be less accepting of this (just the title makes me feel a little sick. I've got a comment pending moderation on this one, so if you never see it, you know why).

Dad: Servant Manager- Wives are to submit to their husbands commands

Mostly it's just these posts and possibly a few others, Love of the Brothers is a good one, but these couple of posts make me even more wary of religion and just how hypocritical it tends to be.
Just makes me uncomfortable to read it and think that these are a minister's views.

Milwaukee County Superviser John Chianelli Endorses Sexual Assaults

Supervisors call for firing of county mental health chief
Milwaukee Offers up Mentally Ill Women as Sexual Bait to Soothe Violent Male Inmates- Candidate for Governor Supports

Let me outline everything that is wrong about this.

• One, rape and sexual abuse should never be a trade-off for anything. If Milwaukee has a problem with violence in male wards, then something should be done to curb the violence such as keeping the inmates away from each other.
• Two, essentially, what they are doing is allowing things such as rape and sexual abuse in state-sponsored facilities. I fail to see how this is in any way a good idea, as both rape and sexual assualt are illegal.
• Three, they are devauling women. They are telling women that they are expendable, tools, and it does not matter if they are hurt as long as it somehow helps men.
• Four, they are showing callous disregaurd toward persons with medical conditions. I am quite sure that people with psychiatric problems are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. Again, this is illegal.
• Five, sexual assault and rape are simply different forms of violence than beatings, scratching, biting, and whatever else the facility was having problems with. Trading one sort of violence for another sort solves no problem, it simply reinforces the pattern and adds even more to the things be fixed later.
• Six, it would seem that they are operating off the 1950s stereotype that women are somehow more docile or more likely to quell violence by their mere prescene. This is clearly wrong, as there are 100 men born for every 104 women and the world still has problems such as war, theft, and general violence.
• Seven, whatever causes the violence in the first place will not be magically cured, it will just be redirected. Again, this solves nothing.

Send an e-mail to Candidate Scott Walker at info@scottwalker.org, and one to John Chianelli at john.chianelli@milwcnty.com.

Discrimination. Again.

A man named Rand Paul has issues with accomodating people with disabilites. Or admit to racism.
Because business should be all about money.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's what Womanist Musings has to say about it:
Tea Party Member Rand Paul Does Not Believe in the Civil Rights Act
Tea Party Member Rand Paul Wants to Abolish the Americans with Disabilities Act

Don't Move to Texas

The current big news is Texas's new Board of Education statewide curriculum.
It is utter [insert derogatory word of choice].

First off; the things added:

• Republican resurgency
• National Rifle Association
• Required to include that the Founding Fathers possibly didn't really mean that the church and state should be seperated.

Next; the vocabulary replaced:

• Imperialism to expansionism
• Capitolism to free trade system
• Slave trade to atlantic triangular trade

Last; a paraphrase of a quote from the Nightly News: the Board wasn't "trying to make it conservative, they were trying to move it toward the middle".

This is especially disturbing since I just finished reading the book Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Links to other reports:

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

Progressive Texas Board of Education Candidates Promise to Undo Textbook Changes

Jefferson v Board of Education

Brief History: The Textbook Wars

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Deepwater Horizions Oil Geyser

Watch CBS News Videos Online"-Deepwater Horizons worker speaks out about various technical problems on the rig



There's a second video there, too.

People keep talking about America's "oil addiction". I rather think that its a power addiction. Big companies (CEOs) want to stay big (make lots of money); and politicians don't want to lose the campaing funds and/or power.

Its a money problem.

This is sad

Unemployed Barber Strangled for Shoplifting Toothpaste




Also: A example of comics sexism

Musings on Language

Feminism does not need to redefine “feminine”. Nor “women”. “Masculinity” does not have to incorporate demureness; nor “man” sensitivity. “Feminine” can keep the non-violent connotation it has.
Feminism needs to redefine how the terms “man”, “woman”, “masculinity”, and “femininity” are used.
Male and female* are biological factors. You are born with testes or you are born with ovaries. Man and woman are a matter of personal identity (As Cocky says “some women have a penis"). Masculinity and femininity are in reality categories of personality traits.
Society says that male, man, and masculinity are all grouped together and are considered to go together; as with their counterparts.
They are not.
The mere existence of transgendered peoples proves this. Once can have a male body and be a woman; as one can have a female body and be a man. Surely masculinity and femininity are the most ephemeral terms. Both are slowly being equalized; often you hear of a woman being described with “masculine” traits and men with “feminine” traits.
A job of feminism is not just to promote the rise of feminine qualities to the same status in society as those of masculinity; it is to demonstrate that these words, these traits and identifiers, are entirely separate of gender.




*In humans, at least

A thing more people should know about

The Obama Administration has a Council for Women and Girls.

Why have more people not heard of this? This is the sort of stuff that should be all over the place. I had not heard of this before yesterday.

I can find no reference of "feminist" on the sight anywhere. Has NOW heard of this?

Incidently: some comics for you to check out.
Neil Gaiman is a great writer. His Sandman stuff is more grown up and metaphysical than most comics, so much that it won a literary award (and the panel in charge made a rule so that no comic could ever win again). Read it and contemplate.
I just read his Marvel: 1602 trade. THAT was good. Marvel superheroes, in 1602 Europe/America. Spanish Inquisition and Queen Elizabeth and such. A nice refresher from the "realistic tone" of modern comics.

A good introduction to the comics world: CrazySexyGeeks: The Series (These videos have a tendency to pop up elsewhere)

A contest entry

For Espanolbot's Where is Cass Cain? contest.



Where is Cass Cain?
Saving Sin.
(Since that douchebag Green Arrow stuck her in that monastery without telling Black Canary.)



Return of the Forgotten Asian Characters!

They will both show up in the new Birds of Prey run and we shall have a touching reunion scene.





Incidentally: TheFBomb. A teenage feminist blogger. I believe I love this.

Parade and Times Magazine

I had some Parade articles pointed out to me today. Barred from responding on the website by my lack of account, I'm talking about it here.

Article One:
"Developed World Leads on Gay Rights"

Countries that have Legal Same-Sex Marriage:

1. Canada
2. Belgium
3. Spain
4. The Netherlands
5. Norway
6. Sweden
7. South Africa
8. ...Unspecified others

Countries where homosexual acts are punishable by death:

1. Iran
2. Saudi Arabia
3. United Arab Emirates
4. Yemen
5. Mauritania
6. Parts of Nigeria and Sudan

Places where sanctions seem to be easing:

1. China
2. Singapore
3. Cuba
4. Nepal

Shouldn't America be sad that South Africa, of all people, is beating them in legalizing gay/lesbian marriages?

Article Two (An Ask Marilyn Question):

I was born in the US and have worked in countries with less wealth. Americans are the biggest complainers of all the cultures I've experienced. Any ideas why?

I have an idea.

Blame the Constituion. It's almost a legal responsiblity, certaintly a legal right, to complain loudly and publicly, as often as possible. It's called the First Amendment. Americans grow up with the proud tradition of public complaining; about taxes and wars and whatever was wrong with the government that week, ingrained in them from the time they can understand what's going on around them. America was pretty much founded on people complaining.

Complaining is an integeral part of America culture, government, and life.

-

Today, I read Times Magazine's "100 Most Influential People of the Year". Here's a selection of some you've probably never heard of (and a few you have).

• President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Brazil). Founding member of the Workers' Party, jailed for leading a strike. "What led him to politics in the first place?...it was when, at age 25, he watched his wife Maria die during the eighth month of her pregnancy, along with their child, because they couldn't afford decent medical care. There's a lesson for the world's billionaires: let people have good health care, and they'll cause much less trouble for you."
• Yukio Hatayoma (Japan). Formed a counter-party to the Liberal Democratic Party, broke it's "virtual monopoly on power in 2009".
• Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (Palestine). "...a passionate advocate of the Palestinian cause with a clear vision of the unequivocal, nonviolent path to statehood and peace with Israel."
• Mayor Annise Parker (Houston, Texas). "...lesbian businesswoman with three kids and a longtime partner." "...she would focus on her city's $100 million budget shortfall during her time in office."
• Bo Xilai (China). Former mayor, former governor, former commerce minister. "There [Chongqing] he launched a crackdown on organized crime that has seen more than 3,000 suspects arrested, including the former chief of police."
• Robin Li (China). CEO of Baidu, a Chinese search engine. "Even before Google created a furor by refusing to censor its search engine, Baidu has been handily whipping it in China."
• Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, President of the United Arab Emirates. Bailed Dubai out of its real estate crash. "The prince has been a sober steward of Abu Dhabi's oil wealth and is planning for a post-oil future: the emirate aims to be a world leaser in sustainable energy."
• Neil Patrick Harris (America). Actor. "The public's perception of gay men is shifting because of this guy, and they'll be too entertained to notice."
• Lea Michele (America). Actress, singer, creator of the Liv Aid breast-self-exam device. "...as Rachel Berry on the hit TV show Glee, she is inspiring young people to get involved in musical programs in schools and encouraging communities to fund them..."
• Han Han (China). Novelist, racecar driver, blogger. "He doesn't focus on the mundane details of his daily life or celebrity gossip. Instead, he zeroes in on the ills of contemporary Chinese society, his barbed posts targeting topics from official venality to the failings of a state-produced movie about Confucious."
• Elizabeth Warren (America). Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, attorney, law professor. "She minds the government's purse strings." "...a thankless high-profile government position overseeing the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of the US financial industry."
• Jaron Lanier (America). Composer, preformer, computer scientist, philospher, author "You Are Not A Gadget". "...he celebrates the potential of the Internet but also laments the way its misuse can suppress the individual voice."
• Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore). Former Minister Mentor of Singapore. "Lee inspired his polyglot population to become the intellectual and technical center of the region."
• Comissioner of Rhode Island schools Deborah Gist (Rhode Island). "When Deborah Gist became Comissioner of Rhode Island schools in 2009, she pledged to make every decision in the best interests of children- something we've heard before and rarely seen happen. Then she started doing it."
• Amartya Sen (India). Author, philospher, professor. "His notion of measuring human development is now central to the work of the UN and the World Bank."
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor (America). Supreme Court Justice. "...she would bring to the bench a deep understanding of how most people who walk down Broadway, or Main Street, live their lives."
• Mir-Hossein Mousavi (Iran). Leader of the Green Movement, 2009 Presidential Candidate. "...Mousavi, 68, and those in his Green movement understand that the revolution's broken promises must be fulfilled and that their nonviolent protests for change must be Iran's true path: governments must be formed at the ballot box, not at bullet point."
• Temple Grandin (America). Animal Scientist. "...an extraordinary source of inspiration for autisitc children, their parents- and all people." "...she has developed corrals for cattle that improve their quality of life by reducing stress."
• Nay Phone Latt (Burma). Poet, blogger, recipient of PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award. "...the voice of a generation of Burmese who are finding ways around an aging regime's desperate censorship. When the junta there cracked down on Buddist-monk-led demonstrations in 2007 and restricted press coverage, Nay Phone Latt's blog was a go-to source for international journalists. For this, he was arrested and is serving 12 years."
• Reem Al Numery (Yemen). Child bride. "When I protested, my dad gagged me and tied me up. After the wedding, I tried to kill myself twice."
• Zahra Rahnavard (Iran). Artist, educator, organizer in Iran's Green Party. "The woman Ahmadinejad fears."
• Malalai Joya (Afghanistan). Ex-Iranian Parliament member, revolutionary. "To be so lucky as to become literate in a place where girls are shrouded and denied even fresh air is close to a miracle. To start underground schools and educate girls under the noses of turbaned, self-appointed defenders of virtue and forbidders of vice is truly extraordinary. But to get a seat in parliament and refuse to be silent in the face of the Taliban and warlord zealots shows true fiber. When Malalai Joya did this, her opponets responded in the usual way: expulsion from parliament, warnings, intimidation and attempts to cut her life short."
• Will Allen (Milwaukee, America). Urban farmer. "Everybody, regardless of their economic means, should have access to the same healthy, safe, affordable food that is grown naturally."

The Ghost Nation

My last post was a compilation of some of the posts from this website.
Now to my response.

Anti-Feminist Definition
From this we can infer that:

If you are a feminist, you do not believe in God, you endorse Zionism, sodomists, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, you share private information, you are a misogynist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, fake friendships, are manipulative, associate with criminals, Zionists, and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-homosexual, atheist, do not respect other's privacy, and do not believe that sodomites are homosexuals.

Anti-Feminists are not these things.
For those who don't know, Zionists believe in a "sovereign, national Jewish homeland". In other words: Israel.

-

I'll let this one speak for itself:

Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."

Remember: these people are bad!

-

To rehash:
Feminists are selfish, angry, deluded, psychotic, worthless, resentful, greedy, mindless, and vain.

Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck

-

Women are immoral, asocial, have no conscience, and are naturally destructive.

"The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners."
Unknown

"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all

-

The Bible says you are a bad person if you work outside the home!
Go read "The Feminist Mystique".
Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife

-

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
I find it amusing how many of these are really turned around insults against women.
A feminist version:

"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Women's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of male detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic... Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a woman's insecurities and shut down debate...
Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad hominem (against a person's character) attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against women whenever a discussion arises about feminism, women's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
-
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions she has are assumed to be unjustifiable.

Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at men."
"You are so negative!"

Response:
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
-
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with men.

Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance!"
"You're afraid of a strong man!"

Response:
It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some women are finding out that many men fail a cost-benefit analysis.
-
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of women .

Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up!"
"You girls don't have it as nearly as bad as us men!"
"Your fragile female ego ..."
"Wow! You girls need to get a grip!"

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of women. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem women face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any woman should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
-
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on her status as an adult female.

Examples:"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in girls. I'm interested in real women."
"Women are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."

Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
-
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.

Examples:
"You butches are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."

Response:
It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some men think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a woman's legitimate freedom of expression.
-
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away her own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming men for her problems.

Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."

Response:
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
-
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.

Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the Nazis."
"... more anti-masculine zaniness"

Response:
One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
-
Charge of Being Unfeminine (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or femininity is called into question.

Examples:
"Are you a lesbian?"
"I need a real woman, not a girl."
"You're such a child."

Response:
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight woman leaves her accusers guessing about her sexual orientation.
-
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about men.

Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"

Response: One may point out that anti-feminist and many other men make generalizations about women. Quotations from anti-feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all men may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
-
Charge of Emasculation(Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular man or to men in general.

Examples:
"You emasculating creep!"
"Why do you hate men?"
"Do you love your father?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of men."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view men as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of men!!"

Response:
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-female agenda become inherently anti-male (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for men who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of arousing fear about what the target wants to do to men.
-
Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.

Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
-
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at women who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits or mothers who want to work outside the home.

Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
"You are so selfish."
"You will hurt your children."
"You are a horrible mother."

Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money or time on myself, but should instead spend it on a man like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
-
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as men are concerned.

Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"I bet you don't shave your legs!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"

Response:
This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of her arguments.
-
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.

Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with men, then you are admitting defeat."

Response:
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking women to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of men and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many women have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
-
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that her viewpoints or behavior will cause men to reject her as a mate.

Examples:
"No man will marry you with that attitude."
"Feminists like you will never get laid!"

Response:
This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Whip" is to realize that a woman's happiness and worth is not based on her romantic conquests (including marriage).

It's amazing what little I had to change on this to make it work! Read the original and compare. The only thing I couldn't alter was the "Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge".
Some I didn't even have to change at all, excpet the pronouns.
If men and women's viewpoints are so similar, why can't we all get along?

In the spirit of fairness

I decided to take a look at the anti-feminist point of veiw today, to see if there was anything there that wasn't "women are evil", which is what I had heard.

Sadly, it seems the people I had heard were right.

From Angryharry.com
Immodest Women Cause Earthquakes Women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.
Correct!

From The Ghost Nation

Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."

Anti-Feminism Definition
"An anti-feminist has a sincere belief in God.
An anti-feminist is anti-Zionist.
An anti-feminist is heterosexual.
An anti-feminist is anti-abortion.
An anti-feminist is rational.
An anti-feminist is logical.
An anti-feminist is fair.
An anti-feminist is polite.
An anti-feminist is head of the household.
An anti-feminist is fun to be around.
An anti-feminist is trustworthy.
An anti-feminist is calm.
An anti-feminist is heterosexual.
An anti-feminist is creative.
An anti-feminist is constructive.
An anti-feminist is caring.
An anti-feminist is trustworthy.
An anti-feminist is wise.
An anti-feminist is helpful.
An anti-feminist is pro-life.
An anti-feminist is orderly.
An anti-feminist is caring.
An anti-feminist is humble.
An anti-feminist is hygienic.
An anti-feminist is non-violent in most circumstances.
An anti-feminist is honest.
An anti-feminist is forthright.
An anti-feminist is sincere.
An anti-feminist does not manipulate people.
An anti-feminist does not knowingly associate with criminals, Zionists, SADs, sodomites, psychopaths or sociopaths.
An anti-feminist does not harass, menace or stalk.
An anti-feminist does not use treachery as a means of fighting.
An anti-feminist does not use illicit or psychotropic drugs.
An anti-feminist plays sports rather then watch sports.
An anti-feminist is not two faced nor does he/she fake friendships.
An anti-feminist is not an atheist or an agnostic.
An anti-feminist supports heterosexual marriages only.
An anti-feminist dislikes rap, death metal and hip hop music.
An anti-feminist registers to vote as an Independent.
An anti-feminist believes that men that engage in rectal intercourse with their girlfriend or wife are homosexuals.
An anti-feminist is respectful of a person's right to privacy.
An anti-feminist believes that tattoos are the mark of the beast and is disgusted by them.
An anti-feminist believes in homeschooling his or her children.
An anti-feminist believes that when one surrounds himself/herself with evil then he/she becomes evil.
An anti-feminist believes in dating foreign womyn.
An anti-feminist is not a misogynist.
An anti-feminist is not a misandrist.
An anti-feminist is not a vulgar person."

Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck
"1) Selfish - to the point where they don't know the difference between love of self and plain downright greed--and drilled into believing that whatever happens is the fault of whatever man is in their life because of the feminist crud drilled into them by the cadre of asexual closet cases called "therapists" who appear on "Ricki", "Oprah" or other such electronic drivel.
2) Deluded - into thinking they "deserve" a rich, model-handsome husband who will "take them away from all of this"--whatever the "this" might be--and leading to resentment when they discover that the universe does NOT revolve around them.
3) Angry - ALL the damn time about things which are so far out of their control as to be nonsensical--and constantly wanting to "discuss" this mind numbing drivel ad nauseam.
4) Psychotic - multiple personalities in the same woman - as "Nomad" put it in the "Star Trek" episode: "Woman...a mass of inconsistencies...", and also when the feminist voices in their heads start with the regrets and victim acculturation.
5) Worthless - anything that does not immediately resolve itself in her favor or to her benefit is meaningless to her, especially husband and family.
6) Lazy - drilled into their head that they "deserve" a maid, nanny and personal slave to take care of every detail - and that their husband/boyfriend is REQUIRED to cater to their each and every mindless whim.
7) Resentful - especially of other women who have things that they do not, in material, spiritual and esoteric senses.
8) Greedy - to them, "housekeeping" means getting the house in the divorce (thanks to Zsa Zsa for that immortal line) and sucking the guy for every last cent, even if they had nothing to do with the building of the nest egg.
9) Mindless - constant, irritating, idle prattle about topics they read about in some women's magazine and then become instant experts--particularly pop psychology and the latest &^%$% they see on "Oprah" or "Ricki".
10) Vain - believing that they are irresistible to everything in pants and therefore are allowed to behave sluttish and without any honor."

"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all
Collection of quotes complied by Uzem & Luzem. The blog uses language and links inappropriate to be directly hot linked. Some of Uzem & Luzem's "unknown" quotes and "unknown" anecdotes come from the americanwomensuck.com forum's old database.

"No fault divorce" is no divorce at all: men continue to have the same duties as if they were married. It is just women who stop doing their duty.Unknown

I used to get depressed and would despair at my lack of "success" with women, but when you see so many decent men get "chewed up and spat out" by the divorce industry, then in some ways I am a lucky guy. Even my own mother (who was raised as a strict Catholic), is appalled at the way modern women behave eg. lack of life skills, sluttiness, extreme narcissism, unfaithful etc. And now even my own mum often said to me: "Seb, you are better off alone, rather than being ruined by some unfaithful and treacherous slut", and "if your sex drive gets the better of you, go pay a hooker".Seb

Marriage adds nothing to a man's life but risk and obligation.Unknown

All is fair in love and war. And women have definitely declared war on men...Unknown

Women are cold blooded creatures by nature. At divorce the act is dropped.Ztp

Rumors of happy, well-adjusted and non-man hating AW are vastly over exaggerated.Shard43

I frankly think most Western women are too far gone to be brought back down to earth and right the ship. Lord knows I've tried to reason with them and the blogosphere is full of sage and sane advice for how society ought to be run and how people ought to act. They take the society around them for granted as a birth right as though it grew on trees just to please them and takes no disciplined effort to maintain. They show no ability or desire for introspective accounting of their behavior. Really, they are truly boring individuals.Mandy

Woman's behavior across the board teaches us time and again that morality is a foreign concept to huge numbers of them.Unknown

The hidden cost of allowing women to demonize men as violent child molesters with zero proof is that men don't get married, don't have kids, don't enter professions that require interaction with kids, don't save kids when they are in danger, and generally abandon their traditional role as protectors of the young. It's as though we have been sent to internal exile in a virtual gulag. Touch a child, go to jail. If his mom dislikes you, this can happen even if you are his father. And yet, we are still lambasted by feminists as members of the all-powerful patriarchy.Nemo

The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners.Unknown

I didn't realize HOW stressful [working with women was] until I no longer worked with them; I didn't really see this until I worked with men only. Wow, what a difference there was! There was no drama, no $%#@$#%@; we just came in, did our jobs, then went home. You don't have to worry about sexual harassment; you don't have to worry about saying the wrong thing, nor saying it in the wrong way. You don't have to worry about a woman laughing at your joke, then turning around and crying sexual harassment to your boss; you don't have to worry about her back stabbing you. If a man has a problem with you, he'll pull you aside, tell you what it is, and what he wants you to do about it; as a man, you say sorry, then make a sincere effort to address his grievance. Then (gasp!)-it's over!! No more BS to worry about! With men, conflicts are quickly resolved, then they're forgotten. Working with men, you don't have to worry about walking on $%^&^%$ eggshells all the time-thank goodness!!Markymark

Educate a man, and you'll feed a family. Educate a woman, and you'll feed a multinational corporation.Unknown

The hidden cost of allowing women to demonize men as violent child molesters with zero proof is that men don't get married, don't have kids, don't enter professions that require interaction with kids, don't save kids when they are in danger, and generally abandon their traditional role as protectors of the young. It's as though we have been sent to internal exile in a virtual gulag. Touch a child, go to jail. If his mom dislikes you, this can happen even if you are his father. And yet, we are still lambasted by feminists as members of the all-powerful patriarchy.Nemo

Marriage is a three ring circus:1. Engagement ring.2. Wedding ring &3. Suffering.Unknown

Feminists bang on about men being predators on the hunt for sex, but women are the predators in that (usually once worn out and aging) they seek out a sucker to marry them, filtering out guys not rich enough for their liking, and then putting on the pretense of being chaste and pleasant until he's signed the dotted line. Then the guy is caught and done for.Unknown

A scorpion was wandering along the bank of the river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him across the river.The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me and I'll drown."The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown."The fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too.""I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."posted by Ztp(original author unknown)

It is significant that women so regularly ask "What are men for then?" It shows women's selfish and spoiled ways, namely that they automatically assume everyone and everything else in the Universe is for their benefit. Women are thrown into confusion if they attempt to grasp the idea of there being anything or anyone that isn't there solely to serve their whims. Incidentally, if you want to see a world without men, just pop along to the nearest crime-ridden poverty-reeking inner-city single-mother populated ghetto. Such charming places pretty much pure Matriarchies with just women and "their" children.Unknown

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at women."
"You are so negative!"
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance like a man!"
"You're afraid of a strong woman!"
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little"). Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up like a man!"
"You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
"You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
"Your fragile male ego ..."
"Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:
"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
"Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:
"You guys are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the KKK."
"... more anti-feminist zaniness"
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:
"Are you gay?"
"I need a real man, not a sissy."
"You're such a wimp."
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
"You misogynist creep!"
"Why do you hate women?"
"Do you love your mother?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of women."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view women as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
"You are going to make me cry."
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples:
"If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
"How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"Creep!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation. Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
"C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:
"No woman will marry you with that attitude."
"Creeps like you will never get laid!"
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage)

Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife
1. Do I work outside the home because I am bored as a homemaker? Many women today place too much emphasis on career and fulfillment outside the home. Young women need to be taught that being a godly wife and mother is a lofty and admirable aspiration.
2. Do I work to satisfy my pride? Do I work just to prove I can make it in a "man's world?" The woman who chooses to marry is to submit herself to the Lord and her husband and her role of "helper" to him.
3. Do I work to satisfy my own or my husband's greed? Greed and covetousness are never proper motives for work (1 Tim. 6:6-10).
4. Do I work because the children "get to me?" Do your children make you nervous or "drive you up the wall" so that you cannot stand to be at home with them? Or do they make you feel that because of them you have been shackled at home? If either of these describes your feelings,is this not a sign of improper perspectives and priorities?
5. Does working outside the home constantly interfere with my responsibilities to God, Christ and the church? (Matt. 6:33; Col. 3:1).
6. Does working outside the home interfere with my responsibilities as a godly wife and mother? Has it interfered with providing for the emotional and physical needs of your husband? Has it affected your attitude by making you independent and aggressively destroying your submissive spirit toward your husband? Has work outside the home taken you from your responsibilities to not only bear children but to raise, nuture and teach your children -- especially during their most formative years?

13 Indicators Of Matriarchal Madness
1) The systematic entitlements and favoritism that women receive in family court.
2) The systematic entitlements and favoritism that women receive in divorce court.
3) The systematic entitlements and favoritism that women receive in the work place, schools, universities, military, police, etcetera (and are exploited by the vast majority of American/Western women).
4) The systematic entitlements that women criminals receive from the media, the police force, and the criminal justice system.
5) The systematic entitlements that false accuser women receive from the media, the police force, and the criminal justice system.
6) The selfishness that is feminism and vast majority of American/Western women.
7) The fraud that is feminism and vast majority of American/Western women.
8) The manipulation that is feminism and vast majority of American/Western women.
9) The narcissism that is feminism and vast majority of American/Western women.
10) The insane, selfish, and shallow behavior of feminists and vast majority of American/Western women.
11) Feminists and vast majority of American/Western women make terrible mothers.
12) Since the rise of feminism, the USA has had the highest incarceration rate in the world and highest drug use rate in the world.
13) The media, feminists, and man-ginas will not hold American/Western accountable for their indefensible actions, allowing women to engage in behavior that is damaging to society with 100% impunity.

My issues with this website need an entire other post to articulate. I therefore leave you with a post that at least begins and ends partly decently.

Where Did The Phrase "American Women Suck" Come From?
The name American Women Suck was originally created by AWS who is now a member of The Ghost Nation.www.americanwomensuck.com was up about 5 years before changing names and urls. We told people that the policies of corporate America and the feminist USA government would lead to financial disaster and we were correct. Now the most ardent anti-feminists are part of www.theghostnation.com. The terms "femerica", "AW", "SADs", "PAMs" and "hollyweird" were also created by AWS. The modern anti-feminist movement is now defined by www.theghostnation.com.Below is a very accurate definition of the phrase "American Women Suck":

The problem with modern American feminism is the inability of this political and social movement to effectively adapt to the differing expectations of American women. American women are caught in the relentlessly changing cultural expectations. Career? Family? Marriage? Independence? American feminism seems to only present one answer – career and independence at the cost of marriage, healthy relationships with men, family. Yet when an American woman’s biological urges for procreation and domesticity surface (as they almost always do), the women are caught in an ugly vice. The jaws on one side are the needs to be a wife (and possibly mother) the jaws on the other are the feminist ideals of career and independence. American women lack the cultural and emotional sophistication to deal with this.

A female friend of mine recently tried to join a local political group that seeks to be mentors to teenage girls. However, this friend of mine lacks the advanced professional credentials that this group wants. My friend works in an office during the day and works in a restaurant at night – perfectly reasonable jobs and both worthy of respect.

However, the group of women she wanted to become involved with – spearheaded by a local female TV news reporter – made it clear that the group of women mentoring young girls would be made up of CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Are these the only role models for girls? Should there not be a whole bevy of options for American girls? How about a happy, stay-at-home mom or a contented wife in a childfree relationship as role models? Apparently these options are not viable for young American girls, if this group of modern feminists is to be believed.

Feminism also teaches women that men are the enemy, that we are brutish and foul creatures whose only point in life is to subjugate women with our sexual urges. So, the lesson continues, there can be no compromise with the enemy for that is losing the battle. God forbid that an American woman would want to make a man happy. That would be treasonous to the cause! When American women get together to compare notes, the peer pressure is not about happy relationships, but more about swapping stories of how they acquired the trappings of status regardless of state of their relationships. There is almost glee when women denigrate their boyfriends and husbands. “Oh, I really don’t care about making him happy, as long as have my (insert status symbol here)”.

I have an anecdote about my ex wife. I recently corresponded with her just before a hurricane was to strike where I live. She offered that I could stay with her in the event of evacuation. It was a gracious invitation. Yet, in her email she stated, “I’m sure my boyfriend won’t mind”. It was that one sentence revealed her true nature. It summarized everything that is so unappealing about American women and was a stark reminder of the reasons behind our divorce. Imagine, she invites her ex husband to stay with her but does not ask her boyfriend? Has she no respect for his feelings in this matter? That one sentence in her email is damning of her and insulting to him. I wish him luck.

The worst lessons of feminism – and the lessons that almost all American women have learned too well – is that women deserve it all without commensurate levels of sacrifice. It is the lesson that compromise is weakness. It is the lesson that they deserve affluence, the perfect family, the perfect man, and a life of entitlement without any cost to her.

Men know better. We knew that there is no “having it all”. There is no free lunch. We know that corporate success requires great sacrifice. Friends, relationships, hobbies, all play second fiddle to the climb up the corporate ladder. This we know. This we accept. We know that being an involved father usually means not getting all the promotions at work. Frustratingly, American women have not learned this lesson. So, they vent their frustrations at home and in the workplace, making for both difficult colleagues and second-rate mothers.

Feminism cannot accept that women cannot both be strong and independent while at the same time being the perpetual victim. Oh righteous feminist, which is it? Are women strong? Or are they weak? Do we hold open to door for the strong female executive? Do we not help a mother with young children by helping her with her grocery bags? You, righteous feminist, have recast the cultural rules yet you refuse to follow them. Is it any wonder why so many millions of men eschew marriage and relationships with American women? Can you not see the unintended consequences of your actions? Perhaps we are asking too much of you.

When an American man pitches woo to a foreign woman, it is a direct and bold statement that the man is not going to play the game that the American feminists so desperately want. A foreign woman is not (yet) burdened by the clash of expectations that American woman cannot cope with. A foreign woman typically has no problem with making a man happy because her culture tells her that a man’s happiness reflects well on her own success as a woman. Foreign women know that if they give love, they will receive love. They know that the unintended consequence of independence is loneliness.

The sad stereotype of the shrill, unfriendly, independent American career woman is becoming stronger and stronger. The equally repellent stereotype of the overwrought and unfriendly soccer mom shuttling her kids around while trying to keep her independence is also becoming part of our cultural landscape. The scowling American woman is all too common. It’s not men making her scowl. It’s her inability to see reality and choose appropriately that is making her scowl.

I am not angry with American women. I merely pity them. I pity them for embracing feminism without any critical thought. I pity them for making men the enemy and not loving partners. I pity them for their unsuccessful struggle with their own rules. I pity them for not understanding that life is about compromise and that compromise is not weakness.

When an American woman asks about my job, my car, my home I can only sigh in dismay. Men are not simply wallets to be looted. Nor are we all rapists and gorillas. We are complex and interesting humans who need respect and love, as do women. Pathetically, American women have been brainwashed into thinking that giving love and respecting men is somehow evil and wrong. No matter, American women can wallow in misery as much as they want. I will happily and respectfully court my Latin girlfriend and let independent and unfriendly American women enjoy their cats.


I hope I will someday find an anti-feminist website that doesn't just try and reflect the problem through a distorted mirror.