A discussion of the totalitarian roots of the politics of sex and of the implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of our families

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
(Milton Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics)

All developed nations now use force to achieve the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

In all developed nations, fathers in ever-increasing wholesale numbers are being forcibly removed from their families.  Not only that, but the bureaucracies of all developed nations go out of their way to ensure that disfranchised and expunged fathers not only have great difficulty in maintaining a close relationship with their children, but that they are burdened with capriciously calculated, court-ordered child-support amounts that essentially put many fathers into poverty or jail, and push others to the brink of suicide and beyond.

Child-support payments are ostensibly for children of divorce but are in essence income for the children's mothers.  No mother has ever been held accountable for on what she spends the often amazingly generous amount of child support moneys a mother receives. That is, by the way, even true of family allowance checks that the governments pay to women.

Men and women are increasingly more often reluctant to form families, and, even if they do, record numbers deliberately refuse to have children.  In virtually all developed nations (the USA are an exception, but just barely and only due to illegal immigrants), birth rates are now far below the levels required to maintain population levels without massive importation of immigrants from lesser developed nations.  Birth rates everywhere are in constant decline.  In consequence of the steadily declining birth rates, the young and working population sector that supports the older or unproductive members of society is becoming steadily smaller, and the population sector of the elderly is steadily growing. 

The social safety nets of all developed nations have become stretched to the breaking point to such a severe extent that some economists estimate that our social safety nets will inevitably collapse within about a decade.  In times of plenty, people forget to pray.  It will not be all that much longer now that people will pray for families, and that they will curse the day when they decided to forego having a family—or being part of one—for the false security offered by Father State.  Father State (or Mommy State, if you prefer) is no longer up to the task of providing security to people out of increasingly more and more insufficient tax revenues gathered through increasingly more oppressive levels of taxation. 

Forcing the liberation of women down people's throats by imposing punitive taxation for married couples, and by making marriage an unattractive proposition and unenforceable contract, brought sexual freedom (the early communists called it "free love").  It also brought enormously elevated incidence rates of sexually transmitted diseases (some of them causing great numbers of deaths), escalating poverty for men, women and children who could otherwise have prospered in intact families, and it brought increased social chaos. 

It did not bring freedom in the greater sense.  It brought the manufacturing of concern for special groups of "victims" and the use of force (taxation) to elevate those special groups of "victims" from their ostensive inferior and oppressed status to that of government-enforced "equality".

During the initial phases of the USSR, all that had to be done for a couple to achieve the dissolution of their marriage was to visit the local magistrate's office, declare their intention, sign the divorce certificate, pay five kopeck (about a nickel) to get it stamped, and they were free from one another.

That was made possible in accordance with Marx's and Engels' theory on what was necessary to convert a society that evolved out of 10,000 years of social tradition based on nurturing and respecting the family (they called such a society a patriarchy) to a socialist state.  The social engineers of the USSR soon found that things were not quite so simple. (See: The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

Although social policies eventually changed in the USSR to address the undesirable consequences of eliminating families altogether, in the 1940's the USA imported the child support and alimony enforcement measures that had been developed in the USSR and began to implement them. 

By the 1970's no-fault divorce had been put into position. That was ostensibly to ease and facilitate divorce by mutual consent. In reality one party in marriage uses it to facilitate divorce through unilateral declaration. In the vast majority of cases women make the declaration against the wishes of their husbands. That becomes a virtual certainty when children are present in a marriage. Women can claim children as their property and use them as a source of a stable and often exceedingly generous income after divorce.

That innovative judiciary nightmare spread like a wildfire throughout the developed nations.  It became soon apparent that the courts could not cope with the flood of divorce applications that caused ever-increasing waiting periods before divorce decrees could be issued.  To expedite the dissolution of marriages, family-court systems were implemented throughout the developed nations.  Nothing much would have been accomplished by merely shifting venues and leaving the rules of the court intact.  Therefore the family-court systems were made to operate without jury trials, without the traditional rules of the court, without rules of evidence, and without the mandatory and constitutionally-guaranteed right of respondents (usually fathers, in family courts) to have legal representation.  Many procedures that had been put into place over the centuries to ensure that anyone could be assured a fair trial thus vanished in the family courts. 

That, too, was nothing new.  All totalitarian regimes that were obsessed with the eradication of enemies of the state did the same when they created their people's courts.  We can't be certain that the example of the people's courts in totalitarian states was used as a model for the more recent creation of the branch of the judiciary in which the rules of law could be held in abeyance and circumvented.  One thing is certain; all of that worked fine and produced fine results.

The enormous and overwhelming backlog of divorce applications got soon cleared, and the process of the dissolution of marriages has been operating with great speed and efficiency ever since.  In some countries (e.g.: the U.K.) the process operates behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the interests of the children, although it should be quite obvious to anyone reading this who is being protected.

The family-court procedures received further refinements since then.  It is now no longer necessary to wait for a divorce decree or for a decision to determine whom to award the children of a marriage or anything else that could be considered an asset.  Possession date is now quite conveniently the day on which a woman (whether she is married, living common-law or is merely visiting makes little or no difference) declares to a judge that she is afraid of her spouse or partner. Remember, there is no longer any need to provide corroborating evidence or for the "accused" to face his accuser.  Kids, car, cash and castle can then immediately be taken possession of through the expedient process of having the police remove the husband or male partner. 

The innovation and implementation of zero-tolerance policies with regard to domestic violence and mandatory arrests of men made it possible to install a further refinement of the husband-removal process.  The husband or male partner will be removed as soon as it is possible for a police cruiser to arrive after a woman dialed 911.  It seems hardly possible to think that, short of murder, any further expediting of the process of husband-removal is possible.  However, maybe the judiciary activists are working on that already. 

Some women now and then murder their husbands; some do it more than once.  It usually happens, when a given man who is about to meet his maker through the actions of his wife (in newspeak: intimate partner), that he is intoxicated, sleeping or otherwise incapacitated or handicapped.  Poison is a favorite murder weapon of women.  Murders of that type are frequently not identified as murders, unless a series of deaths under similar circumstances involving the same woman as the bereaved widow casts suspicions on her.  Women are likely to be absolved or given a conditional sentence for murdering their spouse anyway, why not switch standards and make spousal murder by women a virtue?  If those murdering wives don't get punished anyway, is it not a waste of the judiciary's time and resources to bring them to trial?

Of course, matrimony until death does them part under such violent circumstances is not a common course of events, but it is growing in popularity.  So far, most often less extreme and less messy methods are employed, and after that or before that the necessary papers need to be issued by the family court, so that the proper rules for the conduct by the expunged fathers can be established, documented and enforced.  That is then no longer a pressing concern with respect to the element of time, although it does press expunged fathers dry. 

Rules for women are documented, too, although those are less stringent and never need to be adhered to.  Women have the indulgence by the judiciary to violate  with impunity the rules that apply to them. 

However, possession has already been taken of kids, car, cash and castle, and the husband and fathers is safely out of the picture  Possession is nine tenth of the law.  Therefore a woman can then rest assured that soon a family-court caseworker will prepare the required papers and schedule a "hearing" according to what opening is available in the judge's busy schedule.  The judge will then, when the time of the hearing arrives, merely have to put the stamp of approval on the decision drafted and predetermined by the family-court caseworker. 

It is hard to imagine anything that could work more smoothly for the intended purpose.  That is why those processes have been in place for almost two decades now.  We can hardly expect that the powers running the system are willing to mess with perfection and to listen to cries for mercy or equitable justice.

The husband and father who by then lost most or all of everything he ever thought was his in whole or in part will be ordered to pay for the upkeep, maintenance and financing of all of the things and children he no longer can enjoy.

That leaves the matter of how to enforce the payment of child support. Courts and police don't do that; neither can the bailiffs and sheriffs who are under the direction of the courts.  The task is simply too massive, and court procedures notoriously too cumbersome.  The very last thing the judiciary system wants is to have successfully resolved the speedy dissolution of marriages and their "equivalents", only to find that the blockage merely moved a little farther down in the torturous path of its bowels.

Enter the child support enforcement agencies. First those agencies were government departments with judicial- and police powers.  However, not only the courts but also all government bureaucratic institutions are cumbersome.  It was soon decided to assign the task of child-support collection to private contractors who operate under government control and supervision.  They usually accomplish the task through garnishment of paycheques, keep a "reasonable" portion of what they collect and mail out appropriate amounts of money in monthly instalments to the intended recipients, the custodians and gate-keepers of the children, namely separated, divorced or single mothers.

Moreover, in many localities and jurisdictions, the task of designing the guidelines for the setting of child support amounts got assigned to those people who are best qualified to ensure a desirable maximum rate of return on investment to the collection agencies, namely the owners of those agencies.

There are local variations of these processes.  All of them more or less align themselves with the goals and objectives that Adolf Hitler expressed in his bunker on Jan. 27 and 28, 1944.  His personal secretary Martin Bormann described the results of those deliberations in fair detail in a memorandum dated Jan. 29, 1944, when he produced the guidelines on how the People could be assured of remaining victorious in spite of losing millions of men and the war. 

The strategy was to abolish existing moral traditions and inhibitions.  That was thought to enable the People to out-breed the enemy, seeing that they could not conquer the enemy on the field of battle that by now had expanded to include the Fatherland, which was being reduced to rubble and ashes.

We must -- for the sake of the future of our People -- promulgate a real mother cult, and therein there may be no differentiation between women who are married according to present manners and women who conceive children from a man with whom they are joined only in friendship! All these women are to be honoured in egalitarian fashion. (Obviously, that is not the case with those asocial elements that don't even know who the fathers of their children may be.)

These statements indicate which inhibitions we must eradicate and which conditions we must create to reach the vital increase in the number of births.

That a man lets himself be brought to trial for arrearages in the payment of support moneys (alimonies) must become a rarity; a man who acts like that without extenuating circumstances must be defamed outright, because his behaviour will generally be considered as being reprehensible.

Obviously, in such a case the State must -- as long as it will be necessary -- pay sufficient support money. It must be quite unacceptable that a mother with a child will ever be in need. Any mother who without fault of her own finds herself in circumstances of material need or lacking optimal conditions must be assured of the designated care by the public.

As I already mentioned earlier, it is necessary that we eradicate and prohibit the presently used designations for relationships that have a more or less odious sound.

We must, to the contrary, even find good, friendly names.

We must therefore deliberate how the relationship that a woman has with a man with whom she may be married in the customary manner shall be designated. We must deliberate how the children that issue from such a friendship compact must be designated, etc.

Hey, why don't we do what the homosexualists are proposing now, abolish the institution of marriage and recognize only "committed civil unions"? Won't that normalize everything down to the lowest common denominator? And as to what we do with children of various sorts and circumstances, Bormann should have lived a little longer. He would have been happy to see our current universally accepted standard, "There are no illegitimate children; every child is a legitimate child." There, wasn't that simple? — WHS

The more fortuitous we shall be in the determination of such names, the easier it will be for us to eliminate the existing inhibitions.

Well, we succeeded beyond Bormann's wildest dreams. — WHS

Nevertheless, these inhibitions must be put aside, otherwise all of the sacrifices of the previous world war and this war will have been in vain, and else our people will fall before the next storms.

In twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years we will then lack the divisions that we absolutely need if our People are not to go under.

After this war, the childless marriages and bachelors must be far more sharply taxed than until now.

The present taxation of the bachelors must be child's play in comparison to the tax load with which they will be burdened in the future.

The revenues from these bachelor taxes must serve for the support of mothers with children, that is, for the material support of our ambitions in relation to our offspring.

I ask of you to thoroughly consider this whole problem in your thoughts and then subsequently to transmit your assessment to me.

signed, M. Bormann

Headquarters of the Leader, Jan. 29, 1944

Annotation.

Re: Securing the Future of the German People

Excerpt from The Secretary: Martin Bormann, the man who dominated Hitler, by Jochen von Lang, Stuttgart 1977, pp. 478-482 [My translation (with edits from Julian Fitzgerald), —WHS] Somehat redacted Original German text of Bormann's letter, and here is the complete original German text of the letter.

Karl Marx, who is generally regarded as the father of communism, promoted heavy progressive income taxes (in the second plank of The Communist Manifesto) as the means to transfer wealth and income from those who have to those in need.

The USSR, which became one of the manifestations of the theories of Marx and Engels, brought into being the persecution and extermination of men to an industrial level.

From the website of the The Soviet Story:

The film tells the story of the Soviet regime and how the Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust.

“The Soviet Story” is a story of an Allied power which helped the Nazis to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale. Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were made taboo, and the complete story of Europe’s most murderous regime has never been told. Until now…

DVDs of the documentary can be purchased through Amazon.com, but the documentary is also accessible free-of-charge on-line.

See a review of the documentary on the soviet holocaust or democide, the definition of democide being the extermination of a people by its government. It is estimated that during the height of the Stalinist purges, men comprised 98 percent of the 8-million people that were being exterminated in just two years, 1937 and 1938.

In the developed nations, women live about six to fourteen years longer than men in the developed nations do — depending on location and if we consider The Russian Federation as being developed, which we do. Therefore, although on average women work fewer years than men do, women spend on average far more years being retired. Men, working much harder and much longer than women do, accordingly wear out much faster. They spend far fewer of their golden years in retirement. Therefore we must ensure that women enjoy far more years of life of leisure at the appropriate level of comfort that is due to women.

Whose needs could be greater than the needs of those who live longest?

Collectively, men make about 70 percent of payments to our social safety nets (through payroll deductions) and receive about 30 percent of social security benefits paid out.

Collectively, women make about 30 percent of payments to our social safety nets (also through payroll deductions) and receive about 70 percent of social security benefits paid out.

That disparity is similar in the area of private insurance and corporate pension plans.

The disparity is far greater yet with respect to child support payments, but there it affects, in addition to the impact of the disparities mentioned above, only men who dared to become married or to cohabit (even if only for one night) and were subsequently divorced or separated. Of all such men, that specific disparity becomes crushing for those that dared to father children. It is fairly safe to assume that the Canadian circumstances in that respect are representative of all developed nations, as the relative proportions of awarding child custody and corresponding child-support allowances to mothers and fathers vary little from country to country.

In Canada, in 1991, men paid 99 percent of all child support paid.  Women paid one percent of all child support paid.

Quotes from Glenn Cheriton's book on Canadian family-issues-related statistics:
Note: Some of the links identified at the URL for Glenn Cheriton's book are dead and will be updated or corrected within the next few days.

In 1991:

• The average child support award in Canada was $4,411

• The average CS paid  by fathers was $4,883

• The few women who paid in 1991 paid an average of $2,758

• The proportion of women who default on child support and don't pay anything at all is 93%

In 1991 there were 136,825 fathers eligible for CS and 127,602 women who didn't pay any of what they were supposed to pay.

Total CS paid by women to single fathers in 1992: $18,314,000 or about 1 percent of all support paid. (Revenue Canada, Statistics Division)  There are 170,000 lone parent families headed by men.  The average single father receives about $109 per year or about $6 - $7 per month per child.

Ostensibly, all of that is in the best interest of the children.  In reality it is a consequence of the government's use of force to bring about equality of outcome through massive income- and asset-transfers from men to women.  As the Party stated in George Orwell's 1984, "Freedom is Slavery", and as George Orwell explained in Animal Farm, "Some animals are more equal than others."

Some people may think, and some may even say it, that all is fine with the world, that women deserve what they are receiving, because men have so much to give, seeing that men make so much more money than women do.  Right...

To pay men more than women receive for equal quality and quantity of work performed is against the law!

Collectively, men truly earn more than women earn, but that is primarily due to three things.

1. Men work on average far more hours per week, per month and per year than women do.

2. Collectively, women limit their income on account of the choices they make.

3. Men work on average many more years than women do.

Men are beasts of burden that are the victims in 19 out of every 20 serious or fatal job accidents and live on average considerably fewer years than women do.  That is quite acceptable to our society, because men can never be "victims",  they are deemed to be unworthy of the status of victimhood.  When the early communists coined the euphemism "status of women" it defined women as victims.

Although women now live far more comfortable lives than they did then, and although the quality of those lives is far better than that accorded to men, now that women's lives last much longer to boot, "status of women" as a euphemism for women's victim status is far more firmly established than it ever was.  Men, the beasts of burden, the truly oppressed and exploited, are farther removed from acquiring victim status than they ever were.

Most men by far, proud, don't wish for victim status.  They are too generous for that, but they should receive some respect and appreciation for all of the sacrifices they make.  Men do not deserve to have feminists conspire with the enormous influence and control they have in government to use tax revenues, that were provided in the majority by men, to gain advantages for themselves and some women but to justify those advantages through intensive tax-revenue-funded vilification and slandering of men.

There is only one single national government department in the world, in Austria, that officially deals with the "status of men".   It is staffed by four women and two men, led by a woman, and pursues the mission to educate men to,

a.) Accept all of the much-needed rights and advances gained by women during the past five decades,

b.) Learn that men have the duty in the world of brave new marriages to serve temporary terms as fathers.

However, there is more than that to the existence and role of men, but, although once-upon-a-time men were much praised for it, that is no longer the case. See: The 1989 Montreal Massacre in the context of men’s sacrifices, 2008 12 07, by Professor Jeffrey Asher.

As Martin Bormann, Hitler's personal secretary, observed in the memorandum from which I quoted above,

The number of residential schools (elementary schools — boarding schools, secondary-school boarding schools with pre-schools, grammar school boarding schools with pre-schools) is to be increased hugely, so that all women who for whatever reason cannot temporarily or not at all raise their children themselves can have them brought up without any difficulties in the residential schools. That will hold for boys as well as for girls.

These residential schools will be required also because the best and most valiant men are in their youth most-real troublemakers and can hardly be managed by their mothers alone.

Women have come to expect preferential treatment and now demand it.  Men are being conditioned from childhood on to accept that, to serve and to be proud to serve, but proud of it they can no longer be.  Men used to be honoured for the sacrifices they made.  Now that for decades they have been slandered, vilified and many of them actively persecuted, oppressed and incarcerated for trying to have families, they are secondary citizens at best, somewhat sub-human, slaves, and inferior to the new Aryans.

The enormous discrimination against men in the West is a product of western chivalry.  Neither the concept of western chivalry nor the discrimination against men it produces is present in the two most populous nations on Earth (China and India) to the extent that they manifest themselves there in noticeable proportions.  Western chivalry is a concept that demands that men adore and serve women.

There is no female counterpart to western chivalry.  Western chivalry entices women to exploit men.  Western chivalry compels men to be deferential to women, to perceive women to be weak, moral minors, yet angels or saints that must be elevated on pedestals.  Men were given honours and appreciation for doing that.  That is no longer so.  However, men are still expected to serve women, voluntarily and without complaint, but woe to the man that provides his services voluntarily to a woman offended by that because she finds it to be demeaning to the status of women.  In that case, the man may receive a poisonous stare, a slap in the face or an invitation to come to court to defend himself against a charge of sexual harassment or discrimination.

Even without the honouring and respect that men formerly received, they still willingly put their lives on the line if only those that want them to do that can convince men that they have to because it will save women, home and country.  The irony is that men don't even have to be convinced, because right from birth they are being conditioned to do that unconditionally: "That's a boy!" and later, "That's a man!" and, "It's a man's duty."  On the one side of the coin is men's duty to serve and protect women and children.  What is on the other side of the coin?  What is a woman's duty?

Honour or not, men receive nothing in return but long lines of their names on memorials and today the scorn of not only feminists but that of countless women whom the feminists indoctrinated to hate men.  That is freedom, justice and equality?  Karl Marx and Frederic Engels must be laughing in their graves.

All that is necessary to trigger active discrimination against a class of people is to regard them as being inferior.  Regard men as being vile, brutal, insensitive and to be oppressors, and discrimination against men soon turns into active persecution of men and into their exploitation as slaves; and who can force himself to respect, love and honour slaves?

If men don't complain about being mistreated, it is reasonable to expect that they will be burdened with more and more obligations, duties and sacrifices until they crack or die; and if they die, so much the better.  Dead men don't complain.  The women who survive them are the real victims, right?  That must be so, consider:

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."

— Hillary Clinton
in a speech at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence
San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998

The point made by Hillary Clinton was made even more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, now involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, when she commented on the mass murder of Croatian men:

"My mental image of a mass grave was that it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up almost in file," she recalled last week. "But these bodies were thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about was their mothers." Arbour is a mother of three herself, although "it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and that's not something you get here in the office every day. I watched the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were demanding," she said, and there was not even a hint of sentimentality in her voice, "that their mothers be told." (Full Story)

See how that works?  We must not mourn the loss of the lives that these men lost, the torture they experienced and their killing .  We must mourn the pain of the mothers who lost the lives of their sons, for the simple reason that the primary victims of that war were the mothers who lost their children.  The suffering and deaths of the children, especially given that they were almost exclusively men who were killed, are not what matters as much as does the pain of their mothers, the survivors and therefore the primary victims of the Bosnian War.

Being a survivor is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.  In the western world, by design, women have to carry that grave burden.  Don't they deserve that men reward them well for that, and is it not proper that men should pay for that with their limbs, lives and reputation?

Additional Reading:

• From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
  Statement of Bill Wood
  FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
  TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

• There is absolutely nothing new about the sort of recent developments described in this web page.  The trend is nothing but a continuation of the chivalry by "men" of the Victorian age (politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and Journalists) who did their best to give women — in the name of liberating them from male oppression — more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).

  _____________
  Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

• In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

What Are Boys Good For?

What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let's look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars' [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male-pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
    There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl's brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
    Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: "If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!"
    All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: "Keep tabs on your weight," "File your nails ... ," "Massage your hands," "Massage your feet," "Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated .... " What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
    Do teenage boys' magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
    In men's magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men's magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p 34-35

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy's job? Because women have more important things to do - like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

— Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras - Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell's message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it "power." The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

One-Night Stand

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn't help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story, translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny, goes like this:

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. "But" said the Scotsman, "I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there's a little bar called McTavish's. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you."

"Well," said the Englishman "at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2."

"Ahhh that's nothin'," said the Irishman, "Back home in Dublin there's Ryan's Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they'll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you've had enough drink they'll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house."

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman's claims. He swears every word is true.

"Well," said the Englishman, "Did this actually happen to you?" 

"Not myself personally, no" said the Irishman, "but it did happen to my sister."

found at angryharry.com

Men's problem is that women's "powerlessness" has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism ^[*], but that men's powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women's favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men's lives.
   While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to "increase" the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

* If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the Roots of Radical Feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

THE HATE MONGERS
From THE CASSANDRA PAPERS, by Andy Turnbull

Neo Nazis and other overt hate groups are amateurs. THE HATE MONGERS explains how some elements of the women movement use lies and hate to make big money for themselves, and how they harm our culture and our economy.

Read THE HATE MONGERS

If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:

SUN — Seniors United Now

The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta

There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
   At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.

If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the planned, systematic destruction of our families and society, a search at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR grandmother site:http://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links to about 80 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.

___________
There is a great need  to promote IMD (International Men's Day) to raise awareness, largely even amongst men, about systemic discrimination against men: A YouTube video about discrimination against men (off-site)