"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."
1 Timothy 6:20-21
Feminism: Castrating America
Author:
Christopher J. E. Johnson
Published: Oct 26, 2016
Updated: May 1, 2019












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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------












Contents:
Introduction

Chapter #1 - Feminism is a Religion
Chapter #2 - The Illusion of Male Privilege
Chapter #3 - Women Are Inclined to Domestic Abuse
Chapter #4 - The Illusion of Rape Culture
Chapter #5 - The Illusion of a Wage Gap
Chapter #6 - The Biblical Role of Men
Chapter #7 - Exposing Secrets Behind The Feminist Movement
Chapter #8 - My Thoughts and Experiences


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminist author and college professor Mary Daly was interviewed by What is Enlightenment? Magazine:
"WIE: Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article, 'The Future—If There Is One—Is Female' writes: 'At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.' What do you think about this statement?"
"DALY: If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore."
-Mary Daly, interview in What is Enlightenment?, Issue #16, Fall/Winter 1999, p. 125-126, retrieved Mar 1, 2024, [https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wieoldissues/wie_en_weboptimized/EN_issue_16.pdf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At its core, feminism is rebellion against God, and because God made woman in the image of man, to help men, therefore, feminists must rebel against men to rebel against God. In fact, Gloria Steinem, one of the most popular feminist voices of the 20th century (and uncoincidentally, an undercover CIA agent), stated the true goal of feminism is not only to take away a woman's choice to be a help meet, but also to destroy her marriage, and her faith in the Christian God of the Bible:
"Here are the aims of feminism: We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement."
-Gloria Steinem, The Saturday Review of Education, Issue #4, March, 1973

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular 20th century spokeswoman for the feminist movement, Andrea Dworkin, did not leave any room for speculation when she said:
"Any man will follow any feminine looking thing down any dark alley; I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a s*** bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you'd need good silver."
-Andrea R. Dworkin, Mercy, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993, ISBN: 9780941423885

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soon after publishing her rants on men being a disease, she acted on her philosophy, entered film director Andy Warhol's New York studio, shot him twice, and then attempted to kill his manager, but the gun jammed. Solanas turned herself in to the police and plead guilty to reckless assault with intent to harm, and although Warhol survived, it was attempted first degree murder (i.e. murder with premeditated intent to kill), and Solanas received a mere three years in prison as a sentence because, as we will learn more about later, women often get lesser punishments than men for the same crimes.

If any female readers take objection to the previous feminist quotes, please keep in mind that they believe you are automatically on their side, whether you think you want to be or not. They simply think you are uneducated, and need their indoctrination program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Username wlxr, "I'm the son of an angry lesbian man-hating feminist," Reddit, retrieved Aug 31, 2016, [reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2tcjet/im_the_son_of_an_angry_lesbian_manhating_feminist]

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

This is why feminists will do what they did at a 2012 presentation given by Warren Farrell, a man who has been outspoken about the rights of men. A camera crew documented the feminist protest which hurled foul language and accusations of rape against all who dared to enter, and for a while, prevented men from entering by blocking the doors, until they were forced to move by law enforcement.

For an example of how ergregious this protest was, one of the students at the university (a young man) had purchased a ticket to hear the presentation, but was blocked by the protestors, and asked to momentarily step aside by security for his own safety. The crowd of vicious protestors cheered as he was turned away from the doors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The woman was also punished:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These were either some of the most ignorant females this world has ever produced, or they were liars, and I am inclined to believe the latter, simply because it was common knowledge at that time that, although most women could not vote, most men could not vote either. This is because voting was NOT a right, and instead, voting was originally a PRIVILEGE that had to be earned because only property owners could vote.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I am a FIRM believer that the United States should return to this standard, and surprisingly, a good explanation of why this is the case can be found at countyoffice.org, a U.S. government website that helps citizens find local governing offices:
"In the early days of America, only property owners were allowed to vote. This was because property ownership was seen as a sign of responsibility and commitment to the community. Those who owned property were considered to be invested in the success of the community and were more likely to make informed decisions. Additionally, property owners were often the wealthiest members of society and were seen as having the most to lose if the community failed. This gave them a vested interest in making sure that the community thrived."
-County Office, "Why Were Only Property Owners Allowed To Vote?" July 24, 2023, retrieved Mar 12, 2024, [https://youtu.be/CN1cey-p7mI?si=EllER4MT6wQcFDiO&t=11]

I have been both a renter and a property-owner in my life, and many people do not understand that the transition will change your perspective far more than you might realize. It forces you to learn about things you never had to learn before, and to appreciate things that you previously took for granted. I have also experienced having renting neighbors versus having property-owning neighbors, and while renters can often destroy property, cause disruptions, and sometimes bring theft and violence to a neighborhood, having property-owners for neighbors more often brings peace, friendliness, and a willingness to help the community.

Let's suppose you and two friends both open a pizzeria together, the three of you vote on which direction the company will go, and over many years, all of you work hard to make it the best pizza place in the town, serving the community with good-quality ingredients and a family-friendly environment. One day, the community gets together and passes an ordinance which says that you and your two friends are forced to consider the vote of the entire community about how your business operates, and you are obligated, under threat of arrest, to give away some of your product and services for free.

One day, the community votes and says you are required to donate free pizza to schools for pizza history education, and in addition, they will be taking some of your pizza, free-of-charge, to hold parties on special occassions. Do you think it is fair that those who did not do any of the work to build the business, nor have any invested interest in your business, are being allowed to vote on how you run the business, and vote to take what they please from your profits, which could cause you to go out of business?

This is what our states have done because, at one time, we used to be able to work hard, buy land, and live on that land without having to answer to anyone. However, through the act of opening up the vote to the masses, the masses voted to take from property owners and give to themselves, which they have done through property taxes, a system that takes away the ownership of private citizens, gives that ownership to the state, forcing the former-property-owners to pay rent to the state to live on their own land (under threat of having their property taken from them if they do not pay), which redistributes their hard-earned money, taking food out of the mouths of their children, to provide the masses with a pathetic, wasteful propaganda machine, called "public education," that is controlled by the state.

In short, voting was never a "right," nor should it have ever been classified as a right because the selfish masses always vote to pressure government to steal from others. Voting has always been a privilege, and privileges must be earned through education, dedication, sacrifice, and hard work, which is why property-owners are much more responsible voters.

If any readers are frustrated with the plague of ignorant voters, I have just given you the solution to the problem. If you want responsible voters, then you have to give the vote only to those who have a vested stake in their country.

The "obvious fact" that feminists push is that women were not allowed to vote prior to the feminism movement, and their fallacy ignores two extremely important points:

  1. Women could only vote if they owned property, but most women did not own property, so most women could not vote.

  2. Men could only vote if they owned property, but most men did not own property, so most men could not vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminists often try to rewrite history to make it seem like women were always under the oppression of men, when real history shows that there have been many female rulers in various nations, and these are but a tiny fraction that could be named:
NAME LOCATION YEAR
Pharoah Nefertiti Egypt 1370 B.C.
Pharoah Nitocris Egypt 430 B.C.
Pharoah Hatshepsut Egypt 1479 B.C.
Pharoah Sobekneferu Egypt 1776 B.C.
Pharoah Hatshepsut Egypt 1479 B.C.
Pharoah Sobekneferu Egypt 1776 B.C.
Pharoah Twosret Egypt 1189 B.C.
Empress Julia Augusta Rome 27 B.C.
Empress Julia Aggripina Rome 49
Empress Domitia Longina Rome 81
Queen Maria Theresa Hungary/Bohemia 1740
Queen Caterina Cornaro Cyprus 1473
Queen Margaret I Denmark/Norway/Sweden 1375
Queen Elizabeth England 1558
Queen Anne (of Austria) France 1615
Queen Jezebel Israel 843 B.C.
Empress Catherine (the Great) Russia 1762
Empress Dowager Ci'an China 1861
Empress Theodora Byzantine 527

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I created this chart to help readers visualize how it works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The provision of welfare is called subsidy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Anna Simons, "Here's Why Women In Combat Units is a Bad Idea," War on the Rocks, Nov 18, 2014, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-92nd Street Y, "Judge Judy with Katie Couric," Oct 2, 2013, retrieved Mar 27, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7p8LWbp8qM&t=495s]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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












-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS BOOK IS CURRENTLY UNDER RENOVATION
I am in the process of writing a 2nd edition to this book,
and it will take some time to complete. Erything below
this point is from the 1st edition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------











He's saying that there used to be a larger male presence in education. Often, women would get married, get pregnant, and become mothers and homemakers, or they would choose to have unwed sex and become single mothers; either way, there used to be many more responsible women and good mothers because they chose to dedicate themselves to their children. Today, birth control is preventing pregnancy, and so more women are taking opportunity to build a career, meaning that more women can be teachers (and it's much harder for men to get hired into child education), and so the fluctuation of grades is reflecting the feminine style of learning, which hinders the boys' educations. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

Granted, there are many examples of male teachers being sexist against girls, and I've heard the stories. However, what's being ignored today, and what we never hear about, are the biases of female teachers in a female-dominated school system against boys.

Moving on, let's see how privileged men are in divorce proceedings. Despite what you may have learned through television shows and news programs, women are the primary filers of divorce:
"Throughout most of American history, wives rather than husbands have filed for divorce. The proportion of wife-filed cases has ranged from around 60% for most of the 19th century to, immediately after the introduction of no-fault divorce, more than 70% in some states. Today, with some variation among states, it remains slightly above two-thirds. The standard explanations for this behavior include the following... women file to assure their innocence in the underlying proceeding; women file to secure rights to custody, support, and attorney's fees... or women file simply because it is more convenient for them to do so. While these explanations have some merit, even in combination they cannot explain the variation in filing rates across states [See Image], the persistence of the 'gender gap' in filing through time, nor the systematic filing behavior..."
[Click image for larger view]
-Margaret F. Brinig & Douglas W. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," American Law and Economics Association, 2000, p. 126-128, retrieved Sept 21, 2016, [unc.edu/courses/2010fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf]

On the issue of no-fault divorce, in case readers don't understand what that means, before the 1970s, couples used to have to "find fault" in their spouse before they could get divorced; either proof of child abuse or proof of an extra-marital affair, something along those lines. A no-fault divorce means that couples don't have to provide evidence of anything, and they can get divorced for any reason. Some hypocrisy on this topic comes from the aforementioned Phyllis Schlafly of the Pro-Family movement who, during the fight against ERA, went to Ronald Reagan to get his assurance of his stance against ERA, but Reagan was the first person (during his tenure as Governor of California) to pass into law the no-fault divorce policy, which was the beginning of a wildfire that destroyed families.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Some of the states analyzed in the study had statistics of women filing for divorce as high as 81%! However, on average, women divorce men 2 to 1, which really destroys the preconceived mainstream media impression that most women are trying to keep the family together. Granted, some of these divorce proceedings are over drunken abuse (by both men and women) and affairs (by both men and women), but it is statistically impossible for those factors to account for the incredibly high percentage of women who file for divorce across the U.S.

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

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

The authors predicted that the differences in divorce filings would start to disappear as women more often enter the work force, but it hasn't happened. It is also important to mention that such a prediction is completely foolish because female divorce filings have increased as women have entered the work force, not the other way around.

The United States Census Bureau reports:
"The majority of custodial parents were mothers (82.2 percent), and about 1 in 6 (17.8 percent) were fathers, proportions which were not statistically different from 1994."
-Timothy S. Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support," United States Census Bureau, December, 2011, p. 2, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf]

This means that women are being awarded custody of their children 6 to 1 over men. Of course, a feminist would say this is because men are evil or bad fathers or rapists or violent abusers, but as we'll see in statistics later, women hold equal, if not more, fault for violence and evil as men. Thus, we can conclude based on clear statistics that women file for divorce to break up the family 2 to 1 over men, and then take the children 6 to 1, leaving the children fatherless.

Why is it, if we live in such a "male privilege" society, that men do not win custody battles far more often than women? Why is so much favor being given to women in these cases? It's called FEMALE privilege.

We also need to consider that, of the (less than) 18% of men who win custody of their children, in many of those cases, the mother doesn't even show up to court. Winning by default isn't technically a "win" concerning custody statistics.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska Office released a study about custody hearings in family court in order to analyze the often-used "legal" phrase "the best interests of the child," in effort to "help divorcing parents to place their child at the center of parental decision-making as opposed to having their child caught in the middle of adult disputes." They chose 392 sample cases at random out of almost 70,000 cases in Nebraska between 2002 and 2012, and reported:
"Of the 392 cases, there were 663 children included in the analysis (almost equal boys and girls under the age of 18). Plaintiffs were more likely to be mothers and the defendants were more likely to be fathers. Fathers had statistically higher incomes than mothers. Both plaintiffs and defendants reported that children were more likely residing in the primary residence of the mother at the time of filing. In the original complaint, parties requested joint custody about 1/7 of the time. In a vast majority of cases, plaintiffs [i.e. women] were represented by attorneys at the time of the filing of the complaint. Defendants, upon entry into the case, were represented in about half of the cases."
-Michael Saini, "Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study," Nebraska Office of State Court Administrator, Dec 31, 2013, p. 8, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [http://bit.ly/1QODLYW]

Let's stop this quotation for a moment because many things need to be said and considered here. First of all, it is the women who are much more likely to be plaintiffs in these cases, which matches previous statistics of women filing for divorce 2 to 1, and that the men, in many cases, are not in favor of the divorce.

Let's also consider that men have statistically higher incomes, and this not due to a "wage gap" issue, as we'll see later in the section entitled "The Illusion of a Wage Gap." Most of these custody hearings are taking place during the divorce, so guess who is paying the woman's and the man's lawyer fees? The man is paying both sides, and that's why, in half the custody cases, men are not nearly as often represented by a lawyer as the woman. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

The children, in most cases, were living with the mother at the time, so to move them in with their father is usually automatically seen as "not in the best interests of the child," and in addition to that, only 1 in 7 cases was a joint custody requested, which leaves 6 out of 7 where (in most cases) the father is fighting for custody, but loses almost every time (and we'll see more reasons why that is when we get to the section "Exposing the Truth Behind Domestic Violence"). When the father knows that he has extremely low chances of winning custody in court cases, and would likely end up having to pay out enormous lawyers' fees for both himself and his wife (in addition to up to 40% of his income for child support or alimony payments), often, he knows it's best just to let the mother have her way, letting her have custody, than to put himself into poverty, which is why some fathers don't even bother contesting their children in court.

Certainly, there are deadbeat dads that don't want anything to do with their children, and the mother has to step in to take charge of the situation. I don't deny that happens, but what we never hear about is the other side in which men are almost not even given the option because of the huge amount of favor women are shown in family courts. (i.e. FEMALE privilege) In fact, in this study, the argument of the typical feminist, that men lack skill or ability to raise children (i.e. he's a drunk or doesn't have a job), is shot down because in 83.8% of cases reviewed, the objection to ability or skill in raising children was never questioned by the court for either the man or woman. (i.e. Meaning both parties had full capability to raise the children.)
-Michael Saini, "Nebraska 2002-2012 Custody Court File Research Study," Nebraska Office of State Court Administrator, Dec 31, 2013, p. 28, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [http://bit.ly/1QODLYW]

The bottom line is that women are awarded sole custody in about 70% of cases according to this Nebraska study, with men coming in a far distant second at 13% (the rest are joint custody). Think about this too: If men get sole custody, then who has to pay child support? After all, the woman can't be bothered to pay child support; she must make the man do it, and in most cases, he does, which means he is incentivized (i.e. encouraged to) to automatically give the woman custody since he would go broke in a near-hopeless battle. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce reports from 2011, women are required to pay less total child support than men, but men end up paying their higher amounts more often than women their lower amounts. Women receive from men on average 63.2% of what men owe in child support, but men only receive 54.6% of what women owe in child support. In case you don't understand the chart below, the "Amount Due" is how much the father (blue) or mother (red) is supposed to receive, and the "Amount Received" is how much they actually got, showing that men are required to pay more than women, and also pay more often than women.
(See Timothy Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2011," U.S. Department of Commerce, October, 2013, p. 7, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf])

I just mentioned dead-beat dads, but have you ever heard the phrase "dead-beat moms?" No, you likely haven't. However, statistically, dead-beat moms are actually more frequent than dead-beat dads. According to the same U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, men paid women child support 44% of the time, whereas women paid men child support only 41% of the time, and women did not receive any child support payments from men 25% of the time, but men did not receive any payments from women 32% of the time. (i.e. 1 out of 4 men don't pay child support, but 1 out of 3 women don't pay child support.)

Over the years, since I did a teaching on marriage, I've had people write me and try to argue for a marriage license, not because they had a particular desire to have one, but because they knew it would cause problems with their family and the church building they go to (i.e. they wanted to do what was convenient instead of what was right), and I tried to explain to them there are hidden things in that marriage (i.e. corporate business contract) they don't understand. For example, a man can marry a woman, thinking she gave birth to his child, and a couple of years later find out she was cheating on him, have a paternity test, discover the baby is not his child, and the couple ends up filing for divorce; however, even though there is proof the child is not his, because of the marriage contract, he will still be required by law to pay child support every month until the child is of legal adult age.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" and "Gay Marriage & Christian Hypocrisy" here at creationliberty.com for more details about what a government "marriage" contract really is, and why so many couples get in trouble by getting a license.)

Men are more often targeted for not paying child support, even in cases where the child is not his. States have passed laws that can take away a man's driver's license and passport, deduct wages automatically from his paychecks, and sometimes even throw him in jail if he doesn't pay, which makes the U.S. one of the few places left in the world where there are "debtors prisons." If a man loses his job and can't find another, police will come to his door to arrest him for not making child support payments; it's happened, and continues to happen, but we almost never hear of women being arrested for lack of child support payments.
(See Lina Guillen, "Pay Child Support or Face an Arrest Warrant," Lawyers.com, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [family-law.lawyers.com/child-support/pay-child-support-or-face-an-arrest-warrant.html])

In addition, men who have sole custody of their children (and are due child support payments they often don't get) end up working full or part-time jobs much more than women do. Custodial men have full-time employment 71% of the time, while custodial mothers only have full-time employment 48% of the time.
(See Timothy Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Father and Their Child Support: 2011," U.S. Department of Commerce, October, 2013, p. 6, retrieved Sept 22, 2016, [census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf])

Alas, it gets worse; MUCH worse. Imagine for a moment that a woman who was raped would be forced by law to pay for meals, housing, and therapy for the rapist who assaulted her; this would be totally unbiblical, and abhorrent to anyone I've ever met. However, when a woman rapes a man (which does happen quite frequently, and we'll cover more on that in the section called "The Illusion of a Rape Culture"), and she has a baby from that encounter, U.S. courts have ordered the man to pay child support.

For example, a 15-year-old boy was the victim of statutory rape by a 34-year-old woman, and she sued him for child support:
"A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support... The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem, admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape... At the July 19, 1995, hearing at which Nathaniel J. appeared through his attorney, the district attorney stated: '[O]ur office is seeking to establish paternity. We are not seeking a child support order... until such time as the minor becomes an adult and is able to pay support.'"
-Justia U.S. Law, "County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., (1996)" No. B100055. Second Dist., Div. Six. Nov 4, 1996, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/50/842.html]

Read the case for yourself if you like; upon becoming of legal adult age, this boy (not legally a man yet) was going to be responsible for paying the expenses of the rapist who assaulted him. If it were a young girl, there would be media outrage and feminist groups rallying to her aid, but because he's a boy, he's stuck with monthly payments until he's in his 30s, and the story never sees the light of day. (Where's the male privilege?)

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

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19

As I've already stated, a Christian shouldn't be involved in sexual activity until after marriage (and only with one's spouse), which will deter such problems before they happen, but getting to the point of this section, where is the male privilege? That woman lied about Hatley. All she did was put his name down as the father (likely because she didn't know who the father was, or that she knew Hatley could make payments whereas the real father would not) on some documentation she submitted to the state, and even though she made a false report and ruined this man's life, she doesn't have to pay a dime of that money back. (i.e. FEMALE privielge)
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There is a law called "The Bradley Amendment," (named after Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey) which prevents any child support payments from being prohibited, reduced, or forgiven. (i.e. A man must pay full child support payments WITHOUT REGARD to circumstances.) If a man gets deployed into active, front-line combat duty in the military, he must make full child support payments, or at least make them up and pay the full amount if he missed them. If a man is put in prison, if he loses his job and can't find another one, or if he is hospitalized in a coma, when he wakes up, he is responsible to pay, in full, all child support payments he missed, and most important of all (as we have already seen) if the child is proven to not be his, no retroactive modification is allowed to be made, meaning the man is liable for all child support payments, or in other words, women can fornicate and commit adultery all they want, and the man is held fiscally responsible for her actions; if he doesn't pay up, then he goes to jail, and there is no hearing, there is only immediate sentencing. (i.e. male slavery, FEMALE privilege)
(See Douglas R. Weimer, "The Bradley Amendment: Prohibition Against Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages," CRS Report for Congress, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2da9g10]; There are currently (as of Sept 2016) organizations working on repealing the Bradley Amendment because of its unconstitutional nature.)

This is particularly tragic for some military personnel because, as I demonstrated earlier, 65% of women file for divorce, and this is a somewhat common problem for military men who are away from home for long periods of time. The wife gets lonely, she decides to abandon him and file for divorce, and then requires him to pay for it. Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly so accurately wrote:
"Most of the reservists called up to serve in the Iraq war have paid a big price: a significant reduction of their wages as they transferred from civilian to military jobs, separation from their loved ones, and of course the risk of battle wounds or death. Regrettably, on their return home, those who are divorced fathers could face another grievous penalty: loss of their children, financial ruin, prosecution as 'deadbeat dads,' and even jail. Reservists' child-support orders were based on their civilian wages, and when they are called up to active duty, that burden doesn't decrease. Few can get court modification before they leave, modifications are seldom granted anyway, and even if a father applied for modification before deployment the debt continues to grow until the case is decided much later. These servicemen fathers cannot get relief when they return because federal law forbids a court to reduce the debt retroactively. Once the arrearage reaches $5,000, the father becomes a felon subject to imprisonment plus the loss of his driver's and professional licenses and passport. Likewise, there is no forgiving of the interest and penalties on the child-support debt even though it is sometimes incurred because of human or computer errors. States have a financial incentive to refuse to reduce obligations because the federal government rewards the states with cash for the "deadbeat dad" dollars they collect. Laws granting deployed service personnel protection against legal actions at home date back decades, but they are ignored in the family courts. Child kidnapping laws do not protect military personnel on active duty from their ex-wives relocating their children. This injustice to our reservists serving in Iraq should be remedied by Congress and state legislatures before more fathers meet the fate of Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from North Carolina, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for five terrible months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive."
-Phyllis Schlafly, "The Price Some Reservists Have to Pay," Eagle Forum, Mar 2, 2005, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [eagleforum.org/column/2005/mar05/05-03-02.html]

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

That's right, the government on behalf of these feminists DEMAND that a man pay his child support payments. If he doesn't, they take away the things he needs to earn money, and demands that he make payments; if he doesn't, they throw him in jail, and then demand he make payments when he gets out. Ladies, please take a moment to consider: If a man wants to pay child support payments, but is in the situation that Gardner was in, what is he supposed to do? (i.e As we'll see in the next section, men can't get help like women do by just flashing a tearful eye.)

Forbes reported that of all the alimony payments being made in the U.S., women are on the receiving end 97% of the time:
"Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners — suggesting that hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony, yet don't receive it... 'Gender equality is a relatively new concept in the span of history, and old stereotypes die hard,' says San Francisco Bay area divorce attorney Mark Ressa. 'A successful man is considered a breadwinning man, and asking for alimony is considered emasculating.'"
-Emma Johnson, "Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony?" Forbes, Nov 20, 2014, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#105627bb23c2]

Men are held responsible not only for child support payments if they are raped by a woman, but also if a woman steals their sperm. There have been numerous examples of court cases in which a man and woman engaged in sexual activity with a condom, and afterwards, the woman took the condom and impregnated herself WITHOUT his consent, and the man is still held accountable for child support, as explained by the National Legal Research Group:
"In State v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 1997), the mother and father of the child for whom support was sought met in a hospital while the father was visiting an ill relative. The mother was a nurse's aide who had access to a variety of medical equipment. The mother offered to perform oral sex on the father, and, in the words of the father, 'as... any male would, I did not refuse.' The mother had the father wear a condom. The mother then removed the condom for the father and, unknown to the father, she inseminated herself with the father's sperm using a syringe in a nearby bathroom. The Louisiana court, noting that the probability of paternity was 99.9994%, held the father's testimony that he 'had some sort of sexual contact with the plaintiff around the time frame of alleged conception, although he denied that they had sexual intercourse' was sufficient to prove paternity. This fact of paternity obliges a father to support his child. In essence, because the father intentionally engaged in a sexual act resulting in his deposit of sperm with the mother, he was liable for child support."
-National Legal Research Group, "It's Ten O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Sperm Are? Toward A Strict Liability Theory of Parentage," 1999, retrieved Sept 28, 2016, [divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml]

The woman invited the man to have sex with her randomly in a hospital, and that should hopefully warn men why you ought to flee from such dangerous situations of fornication. She stole his seed, implanted it in herself, and it not only destroyed his life, but also caused a child to be born into a broken home.

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

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

Young men, read this carefully: You need to know the law before you get involved with any woman. You need to know that you are held responsible no matter what happens, even if you're not at fault, and if you're dating or having interest in a woman who is a feminist, you need to end that relationship immediately and get as far away from her as possible for your own sake.

The Solution is Dropping All Government-Enforced Child Support

There are some people who will be angry with me that I would suggest such a thing, but the real solution to the child support problem is to drop all government-enforced laws, regulations, and agencies that force men to pay child support. We cannot live in a healthy, liberty-based society and still have government sanctioned child support, and in order to understand this, let's pose a few questions.

First, has heavier government intervention on most matters helped or harmed our country? Obviously, it's done a lot of harm, and anyone with half a brain can clearly see that government getting involved in most things is a huge mistake.

So the next question we need to ask is how can we get men to pay for their children without government intervention? The answer to this is quite simple, and it's the same answer to the question: How do I get more people to frequent my place of business and spend money?

Let's suppose you own a restaurant under a free-market society, and you want to get people to come to your restaurant first and foremost over others; what do you do? You have to work hard at it. You need to increase your skills in pleasing customers, which would include improving your attitude towards them, desiring to serve their needs, also making sure what you produce (in this case, food) is of higher quality, and, in general, making your customers feel like they are royalty in your restaurant.

So how does a woman get a man to want to spend money on her and her children? She has to work hard at it. She needs to increase her skills in pleasing the man, which would include improving her attitude towards him, desiring to serve his needs, and also making sure what she produces (in this case perhaps a clean home, delicious home-cooked meals, and well-behaved children) is of higher quality, and, in general, making him feel like he is royalty in her home. (The Bible calls this "reverencing" her husband, and we'll cover more on that later.)

However, feminists hate this concept because they want men to pay for all their living expenses (and that of their children), but they want to be divorced from them, or in other words, they want men to still give them resources without being around. Feminists are lazy women that don't want to do the work of making themselves look pleasant, acting kind and loving, and supporting a man in the way he needs, but they want to be paid the money that a real wife and homemaker gets from her husband for the work she does.


QUESTION FOR WOMEN:
What could I do to make a man want to pay for his family?

What about the few women who may have been raped and have a child? Should they get child support? No, they should get charity. It's sad that people turn to the government, who steals money away (via taxation) from her family, friends, church, and neighbors, instead of looking to her family, friends, church, and neighbors for charitable help in their time and money.

The vast majority of single mothers in the U.S. have CHOSEN to be single, and are using the government to force men to pay for his family without him being with them. It's cruel, and it's pathetic that most single mothers didn't want to do the work of a wife to be a pleasant, kind, beautiful, and helpful woman that a man would want to come home to, so they instead choose to be mean, brawling, and ugly feminists because they're too lazy to change themselves to be help meets.

This free-market approach would also encourage husbands and wives to stay married and work out their problems together, but feminists hate that thought. Men are expected to work hard to be good husbands, but in our degraded American society, women are not taught to work hard to be good wives, and so if we want men to want to pay for their wives and children, it would be better that we not only give them the liberty of making that choice for themselves, but also that women not ostracize him from the family (via divorce) and learn to be the best wives the market has to offer.

Again, I must emphasize the Biblical standards of keeping away from fornication, adultery, and alcohol, and that God's instructions for Christians will keep us out of trouble, but on a legal standpoint, a woman is not held accountable for being impregnated against her will. A man, however, is held accountable for a woman impregnating herself against his will (either through rape or sperm theft). We'll discuss more details on rape in a later section, but if there were truly male privilege, then the opposite would be true, women would be held accountable for their deceptive choices, but the reality is that men's lives are being ruined at the hands of women who take advantage of the system that gives her special FEMALE privilege.
(Read "The Bible vs Alcohol" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

One of the privileges women get is the ability to drop the word "abuse," immediately having people running to her aid, and all the support she can imagine. Without evidence, women can immediately get free assistance and benefits, while instantly destroying a man's life at the same time.



 

Marilyn York owns and operates Men's Rights Family Law Firm in Reno, Nevada, and since 2001, she has represented thousands of men, many of which are fathers.



 

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

This sounds relatively reasonable, but let's also read Law.com's legal definition:

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

To their credit, there is a section in parenthesis that says "although it can also be female violence against a male," but it's added as an afterthought. The main focus is on women and children, and yes, there is a serious problem of domestic abuse against women and children, but the point I'm making is that men are typically excluded from these definitions; the legal definition will usually only recognize women, children, and homosexuals.

I searched for "domestic violence" at feminist.com, and by now I'm sure you can guess that all I found was violence against women. For an organization that claims to fight for "equality for both sexes," I've only seen articles on their website that portray men as terrorists rather than victims; for example, they link to a Women's E-News article called "To Prevent Violence, Insist Men Stop the Abuse," which says:
"It makes little sense to place the burden of preventing violence on the woman. Why 'insist' she seek safety instead of emphatically and unambiguously demanding violent men stop abusing?"
-Rob Okun, "To Prevent Violence, Insist Men Stop the Abuse," Wenews, Aug 22, 2011, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [womensenews.org/2011/08/prevent-violence-insist-men-stop-the-abuse]

Certainly, men who beat their wives or children should be punished, and certainly there have been some domestic violence cases concerning female victims, and certainly we should insist that people stop abusing one another. However, what the mainstream media and feminism (who both seem to be working together) don't tell you is that many studies have discovered is that not only are women just as guilty of domestic violence as men, but women more often instigate domestic violence, as this California State University investigation states:
"This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600."
-Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, retrieved Sept 15, 2016, [web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]

This bibliography shows hundreds of case studies (that span hundreds of thousands of cases) in which women have been found to be at fault for domestic violence against men, and many of those studies showed higher percentages of women instigating domestic violence. As a note, it should also be pointed out that a substantial number of these cases have one spouse initiating the violence, and then the other returns it, or in other words, they're fighting each other at the same time; however, women in the media are almost always excluded from fault.

To help understand why this is the case, consider a group of men and women in which a vicious and threatening argument is breaking out, who is the first to hit someone else? Is it always the strongest person in the group who is the first to strike? Or is it the most emotionally unstable person? The one who is the most enraged, nervous, fearful, or vindictive is usually the first to physically lash out, and in the grand majority of cases, women are the more unstable gender when it comes to emotions.

For women to understand this better, if two adult men in a park walked directly up to you, started calling you names, and started pushing you, it would be a reasonable and normal reaction to get out your gun, pepper spray, or if you're a government-reliant stooge that doesn't believe in using weapons for self-defense, just hit them with your purse. However, if two young boys about five or six-years-old walked directly up to you, started calling you names, and started pushing you, would your first reaction be to get out your gun, pepper spray, or hit them with your purse? No, you wouldn't hit, spray, or shoot five or six year old boys because you are far bigger than they are, and your first thought is typically, "Where is your mother?!"

So women more often will physically attack a man bigger than she is, and if she is emotionally angered for some reason, the obviously stronger and bigger man doesn't usually see a need to use physical force against someone smaller than him. I obviously cannot provide hundreds of case studies in this article (because it will make this far too long), but I want to list out a few cases documented in the bibliography I referenced to above:
  • A 1992 study showed that, out of a sample size of 865 college students surveyed, women were most often found to be the initiators of the physical violence.
  • A 2005 study surveyed 236 men and women (56% women, 44% men) and found that in both dating and marriage condition, women had higher levels of hostility towards men than men towards women. (It's also important to note that more women were surveyed than men in this study, which makes the problem much worse.)
  • A 1999 study investigated other studies referred to by mainstream media that portrayed women the recipients of domestic violence, and it turns out those studies showed equal violence between both men and women, but the part about women's violence against men was censored.
  • A 2006 study surveyed college students (457 men and 958 women) about alcohol-related violence, and despite the fact that twice as many women were surveyed, 26% of women reported being victims, while 35.4% of men reported to be victims. (i.e. They found college girls are much more likely to be violent when drunk.)
  • A 1986 study analyzed male-dominated relationships (i.e. man head of the household) versus female-dominated relationships (i.e. woman head of the household), and found physical violence was greater in female-dominated relationships than male-dominated.
  • A 2005 study collected data from 11,000 students (70% women) from 50 universities in 21 countries and found that even though injuries against women were more severe than men, women more often initiated violence against men.
  • The American Psychological Association reviewed studies in literature and found that, "Women are just as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners," and the research "casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation for why women kill their male partners."
  • A 2008 study conducted a telephone survey of 800 people that let them listen in on a staged equal fight between a man and woman with equal injuries to one another; up to 80% of test subjects were more likely to condemn and blame the man than the woman.
  • A 1995 study surveyed 290 college students (111 men, 179 women) and found that 24.9% of men initiated violence against women, and 38.5% (over 1 in 3) women initiated violence against men.
  • A 1996 study surveyed 114 male and 118 female high school students in dating relationships, who were asked about moderately abusive behavior such as "being kicked, slapped, having your hair pulled, and being intentionally scratched," and found that 50.9% of the subjects had experienced this, with 63% of those being male victims of violence from women.
If you read the entirety of the bibliography, you'll find some cases where violence against women was greater than men, but we all understand this after hearing about it in books, music, movies, and news a thousand times over. What we don't hear about are the majority of these studies showing equal violence between men and women, and that a substantial number of those showed MORE female-on-male violence; I would challenge anyone to find one mainstream media report talking about women's violence against men.

The problem with the feminist arguments is that, through my own experience on the matter, and from every man I've ever met, is that American men have been taught as boys that you don't hit women. There are some violent women out there who take advantage of the fact, knowing a man won't hit them back, and he won't report them because it's not a "manly" thing to do (not to mention that men will get laughed at in humiliation if he reports his wife beating him), so men simply tolerate the female violence against them, but if we lived in a society of so-called "male privilege," then why aren't these attacks on men being reported in the media? (i.e. Female complaints to violence are taken more seriously because of FEMALE privilege.)

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

I'm not making this up folks: The U.S. Government assistance website for women entitled "Men's Health" spends most of the page talking about how men are violent, and in the very small section which addresses violence against men, it never mentions women being the instigators of the violence. (i.e. They presume that the violence is coming from other men in the household; assuming that women can't be violent.) In fact, it ends by telling men that they should find out more information about controlling their presumed-to-be naturally violent and rape-like urges by going to the WOMEN'S section on violence against women:
"Womenshealth.gov's section on violence against women will provide you with information on dating and sexual violence, stalking, and elder abuse, including specific resources on how to get help."
-Office on Women's Health, "Men's Health," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, retrieved Sept 15, 2016, [womenshealth.gov/mens-health/violence-prevention-for-men]

Men's rights organizations have started to arise for many such reasons, but mostly because men, especially white males, are not getting any help for the abuse they take, and as we'll see in a moment, they are getting arrested by police for even speaking up. Dr. Murray Straus testified at a June 2006 meeting of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men:
"Straus, co-director of the Family Research Lab at the University of New Hampshire, recently completed an international study on partner violence among university students. His queries of more than 13,600 students revealed that the most common instance of partner violence is mutual abuse. The second most common situation of partner violence is when the female is the perpetrator against the male, he said. This leaves the reverse — when males abuse females — to be the least common in practice, although the most common in publicity. 'I have a long-term prevention goal that I hope my research will make a contribution to,' Murray said prior to the meeting at which he was asked to testify. He added that it's not enough to provide services for the battered, and that the solution is to stop the aggressive behavior in the first place. He said it's possible to stop half of abuse by making it as reprehensible for a woman to slap a man as it for a man to hit a woman. 'If we want men to stop it,' he said. 'Women have to stop it also.'"
-Men's Activism, "Dr. Murray Straus Testifies Before the NH CSM," July 5, 2006, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [news.mensactivism.org/?q=node/5649]

In the U.S., domestic violence against women is the least common case, with most instances being both men and women harming each other, but women are more than twice as likely to be the sole perpetrators of violence than men. The actual numbers of Straus's study were 13,601 students surveyed, most of which were women (71.5% women, 28.5% men), at 68 universities in 32 countries, and found that mutual violence (i.e. both men and women physically attacked each other) accounted for 68.6% of the surveys, men-only violence 9.9% of the time, and women-only violence 21.4% of the time.
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 32, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])

Feminists will claim that these issues of violence were always in self-defense (i.e. a woman can never do anything wrong), but these statistics were simply asking the basic questions about experiences with violence instigation, and in dating circumstances, it is the women who initiate more than men in abuse cases. (In marriage, most cases show about equal violence from men and women.) The mutual violence cases are also abuse, but sadly, the victim status is almost always given to the woman by default, and even if the woman has seriously injured the man, the woman will almost never have to suffer consequences for it. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

What are some of the reasons for physical violence in dating or marriage? According to a study done by S. Claxton-Oldfield and J. Arsenault in 1999, a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates who had initiated physical aggression towards their male partner said the most common reason for it was "because partner was not listening to them."
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 6, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])

The typical line we're fed in the media about women not reporting rapes (which is not true, as we'll see later) is that the women feel like they won't be believed, or that they fear reprisal [retaliation] against them, or that they don't believe the police would do anything. That's interesting because a 2005 study (R.B. Felson & P. Pare) analyzed data from The National Violence Against Women Survey, and found that "male victims are particularly reluctant to report assaults by their female partners," and their reasons for not reporting female domestic violence included "fear of reprisal, thought that the police could do nothing to help and charges would not be believed."
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 10, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])

Why are men fearing reprisal from women? Because in cases of domestic violence, all a woman has to do is say, "he started it" or "it was self-defense," and whether or not it's true, or whether or not she was involved in the violence, the man is automatically arrested. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

And sadder still, there are women who purposefully take advantage of men because they know men won't retaliate, or at least, they believe men won't retaliate. A 1997 study (M.S. Fiebert & D.M. Gonzalez) surveyed a sample size of 968 women, documenting reasons women gave for initiating physical violence against their male partners; they found that "women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally."
(See Martin S. Fiebert, "References Examining Assaults by Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography," California State University, June, 2012, p. 10, retrieved Sept 16, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2cjJp7B])

What a fantastically brilliant way to emotionally connect with your husband or boyfriend: Beat him up. If we said that the way to connect emotionally to women was to beat them up, that would cause rioting in the streets in outrage, but if anyone says it about men, it's just accepted or ignored.

I need to emphasize that what these women are saying is that they KNOW the men won't hit back, so as a coward, she abuses him with full expectation that she is safe from harm. Remember the definition of feminism I gave earlier? It's an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their actions. Ladies, consider this: If you walked into a lion's den in a public zoo, walk up to the male lion, start screaming in the lion's ear, "You're a stupid lion; you're a useless lion!!" and then slap the lion across the face, it's not going to take the lion very long before he realizes that it's easier to eat you than to tolerate you.

What's sad is that I know of women who would treat their pets with more decency than they would treat a man. She wouldn't beat her dog or cat to emotionally connect with her pet, but she would beat a man to acheive the same goal.

As any mother or father with multiple children will understand, someone not listening isn't a sufficient excuse to hit someone, nor is the excuse "I wanted him to feel how I feel." Women don't believe men will be injured, but how hypocritical of those abusive women who want to "engage men emotionally," when not only can they physically injure men, but they are sure to do emotional damage that would take many years to heal.

I find it fascinating that we, in our culture, understand that in a healthy marriage between a man and a woman, it only takes him slapping her across the face one time to create a chasm (deep canyon of distance) between them. A bridge of trust can be rebuilt with time and patience, but it only take one instance of physical violence, and it can take years to rebuild what was broken. However, why is it that women think men don't react the same way? Why is it that a woman thinks she can slap a man across the face, and she won't have to suffer the same consequences?

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

However, follow up studies have not really been done, and are mostly ignored due to the overwhelming feminist propaganda standing in the way of truth. I'd like to emphasize that, according to this study, 81% of the male victims did NOT contact the police to file a report, and the typical reason for that is because men know they won't be believed, the police won't do anything, and they would likely be humiliated in the process.

More from the California State bibliography I referenced to earlier:
  • A 1997 study (M.D. Gonzalez) surveyed 225 college women and found that 55% admitted to initiating physical violence against their male partner, the most common reason being that she was simply frustrated.
  • A 2007 study (E.L. Hettrich & K.D. O'Leary) surveyed 446 dating college women and found that 32 admitted to initiating physical violence against their male partner, the most common reason being anger and poor communication.
  • A 1989 study (I. Arias & P. Johnson) surveyed 103 male and 99 female undergraduates for their opinions on physical violence in relationships, and found that "a significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful."
Notice that in the study, the men didn't think it was a legitimate excuse to hit a woman in self-defense, but women thought it was justified. However, as we stated earlier, if he does defend himself, he's the one who gets arrested, and we'll see some examples of that shortly. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

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

Let me make sure we fully understand what it means when the men get referred to a "batterers' program." The batterers' program is a counseling group that helps violent men stop beating women. So when a man is being assaulted by a women and calls an abuse hotline, he's given a number to help him stop assaulting women.

Hines reported what some of the men had said about their experience calling a domestic abuse hotline. I'd like readers to keep in mind that the mainstream media (and feminists alike) have taught us that women are the ones who get made fun of, don't get help, and aren't believed concerning domestic abuse; please remember that while you read the testimonies of these men:
  • "They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all."
  • "They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me... I was told by this agency that I was full of BS."
  • "They told me women don't commit domestic violence -- it must have been my fault."
  • "They accused me of trying to hide my 'abuse' of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp."
  • "They just laughed and hung up the phone."
  • "They didn't really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them."
If we are in a society of so-called "male privilege," why aren't men automatically believed and given all sorts of assistance? After all, shouldn't they just have to flash their super-secret 'male privilege cards' for their super-secret club where they get loads of free stuff? In a society of so-called "male privilege," why are women believed, women protected, women counseled, and women helped, but men are ignored and laughed at?

Let's say an abuse hotline took calls from female abuse victims, laughed at them, and gave them reference numbers to a local gym to lose weight and look better for men, what would happen? Feminists and the mainstream media would lose their minds in uproar and protest, and there would be lawsuits and any other media circus event you could think of, but when such things happen to men, no one bats an eyelash. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

Here's another example from Western Australia's Department for Child Protection and Family Support. If you click on the image, you'll get a larger image to view that compares both women's and men's domestic violence helplines.

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

The section of the website for men says:
"This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours."
-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "Men's Domestic Violence Helpline," Government of Western Australia, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Women's-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx]

Granted, at the end of the page, they do say they have information and support for men who have experienced domestic violence, but let's look at the PDF fact sheets they provide. These are the covers to the fact sheets they provide for women and men, and these are from the same sources I just referenced:
The cover for women asks if they have been hurt, and offers information for victims of domestic violence. The cover for men accuses them of hurting women, and thereby also abusing their children, and offering assistance for them to change their abusive ways.

Now, to be fair, the men's domestic violence section had two PDFs instead of just one, and at first glance it seems like men might get some help because it's called "How to Deal with Domestic Violence," however, reading the subtitle gives more details because it says "A Self-Help Booklet for Men Who Want to Change." This means that men must "help themselves" instead of getting help, and the only thing it helps them do is stop abusing women, presuming that women cannot be instigators of abuse.

"If you’re reading this booklet, it's probably because: you're worried about how your behaviour is affecting your children or you've seen your own behaviour in your kids; you're feeling pretty bad about some things you've said or done to your partner; you're worried she might leave you; or she's just left you and you're worried she won’t come back... Perhaps you have recently hurt your partner? Maybe she has left you? You might be overwhelmed by feelings of anger, guilt, loss or fear of a future without her. Do you worry about the effect of your violence on your kids? Perhaps you haven’t hurt your partner, but you’re worried that you will?"
-Department for Child Protection and Family Support, "How to Deal With Domestic Violence: A Self-Help Booklet for Men Who Want to Change," Government of Western Australia, p.2, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/2015/Howdodealwithdomesticviolencebooklet.pdf]

The introduction to this "self-help" document for men provides a mock story about "Adrian" and "Phillipa," and says "Adrian realised that his behaviour towards Phillipa was abusive. Just because he hadn’t hit her, it didn’t mean he wouldn’t in the future." Not only are men who are victims of domestic abuse getting no help whatsoever, but are also indirectly accused of thought crimes (i.e. "just because you haven't hit her, doesn't mean you won't") because they are also indirectly accused of being genetically predisposed to physical violence in their homes and marriages.

In the U.S., we have a "Violence Against Women Act" that has encouraged states to pass laws which have made it mandatory for police officers to arrest someone whenever there is a domestic abuse call, which by-passes fourth amendment constitutional rights of probable cause via a court-ordered warrant. A randomized experiment conducted in Minnesota claimed that these new laws reduced domestic violence cases, but the problem is that the experiment was conducted while the "forced-arrest" law was still optional (meaning that the police were not forced to make an arrest), so there is no way they could get a proper statistical analysis of the new law when it wasn't in full effect, and the reality is that the law has actually increased domestic homicides:
"Domestic violence remains a major public policy concern despite two decades of policy intervention. To eliminate police inaction in response to domestic violence, many states have passed mandatory arrest laws, which require the police to arrest abusers when a domestic violence incident is reported. These laws were justified by a randomized experiment in Minnesota which found that arrests reduced future violence. This experiment was conducted during a time period when arrest was optional. Using the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, I find mandatory arrest laws actually increased intimate partner homicides... This study therefore provides evidence that these laws may have perverse effects on intimate partner violence, harming the very people they seek to help."
-Radha Iyengar, "Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence From Mandatory and Recommended Arrest Laws," National Bureau of Economic Research, June, 2007, p. 2, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [nber.org/papers/w13186.pdf]; Image from same source, p. 23.

First of all, many states have laws right now that require police to arrest someone automatically, even if there is no evidence of a crime committed, or even if the caller lied about being abused. For example, a woman could call the police about domestic abuse, and then after the police arrive, explain to them that she lied because she just wanted to get back at her husband, but the police are required to arrest the man anyway.

To give an example, Alaska's mandatory arrest laws state:
"A peace officer is not required to make an arrest under (a) of this section if the officer has received authorization not to arrest from a prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction in which the offense under investigation arose."
-Alaska Legal Resource Center, "AS 18.65.530. Mandatory Arrest For Crimes Involving Domestic Violence, Violation of Protective Orders, and Violation of Conditions of Release," retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter65/Section530.htm]

This means a police officer has to get special permission to NOT arrest someone, which is completely contradictory to the U.S. Constitution. With that in mind, domestic violence cases have actually increased the number of domestic homicides since these laws were put into place, or in other words, the laws that feminists have pushed into our government have actually caused more domestic violence and made the problem worse.

In case you may not understand why this is happening, imagine for a moment a man who is beaten by his wife on a regular basis, but he doesn't want to hit her back, and so he bottles up that bitterness and resentment. One night, she goes off crazy on him, yelling, screaming, and hitting him, and tells him she's going to call the police and accuse him of abuse. When she picks up the phone at that point, his bitterness and resentment finally explodes into anger and he realizes he has two options: Either he suffers arrest, criminal charges on his permanent record, fallout and blowback from his friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family for being a "wife-beater," and possibly losing his career, home, and/or family, or he could just kill her, dispose of the body, and take his chances to get away with it. I'm not justifying the man in this situation, but rather I would ask the women reading this: In his position, what could he possibly do? (If you think you know an answer, just keep reading.)

As we can see from the gender bias against men (in favor of women) on domestic abuse cases, it's not hard to figure out that most women are not prosecuted for domestic violence, even if they are arrested. A woman is brought forward in a court room, she's small, she's crying, and the resulting conclusions is, "How could this little crying woman be violent? Case dismissed."

A United Kingdom study of the U.S. from the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, concerning this female-bias in domestic abuse, found the following:
"Mostly the response of police to intimate partner violence has been based upon the social position that the men have within the society. According to George and Yarwood (2004), police have threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest. George and Yarwood also found that the police ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators. This is due to the disbelief that a woman could have been the perpetrator of this type of crime and the male must be intimidating the woman to the point that the woman is attacking in self-defense."
-Caroletta A. Shuler, "Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States: An Examination of the Review of Literature through the Critical Theoretical Perspective," International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2010, p. 165, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/carolettaijcjs2010vol5iss1.pdf]

The United Nations is also taking on their presumed responsibility of pushing legislation for what they call "determining the predominant aggressor," which is training for police officers to "analyze" the situation in domestic violence cases. The problem is the list of attributes for "determining the predominant aggressor" are biased against men:
"Police must be able to recognize the tactics of power and control. They must consider such issues as: the severity of injuries inflicted by each party, the difference in size and weight of the parties, the demeanor of the parties, any prior complaints of violence, claims of self-defense and the likelihood of further injury to a party."
-United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, "Determining the predominant aggressor," retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [endvawnow.org/en/articles/437-determining-the-predominant-aggressor.html]

These descriptions are almost all completely in favor of arresting men for domestic violence. For example, weight classes almost always lean towards men being the heavyweight over the woman, which means the man will most often be arrested during domestic violence calls. Another problem is that the "demeanor" of the parties can easily be manipulated by a crying woman who will be seen by the police as an innocent, weak victim, even if she was the instigator, and again, the man will most often be arrested. Governments worldwide are making it easier and easier for women to destroy the life of an innocent man by simply flashing tearful eyes in the direction of police and judges, all on the assumption that women never lie and women are never violent.

The U.S. "Violence Against Women Act" gives women low-income housing assistance, protection, and free legal aid with pro-bono lawyers who will oversee their case, while men are expected to pay for their lawyer fees on their own or go to court without legal representation. This gives women incentive (i.e. government subsidizing) to make false charges against men and lie about what happened in order to get special benefits that men don't have access to, and even moreso when we consider that women are almost never prosecuted for making false charges against men. (i.e. FEMALE privilege - we'll cover more on that in the section on rape culture)

Though the following author does not target a specific gender, he points out that there is a serious problem in the U.S. court system with bias against parents falsely accused of abuse:
"A false accusation of child abuse is one of the gravest offenses one can allege against a parent. In our society there is a bright line standard that if a child is abused, the law steps in to shield the child from the attacker, but what happens when our legal system is manipulated so as to trick a court into protecting a child from an innocent parent? The welfare of a child cannot be recognized when he or she is fractioned from a qualified parent because an opposing parent cried wolf and knowingly made false accusations against the other of abuse to gain custody of the child, and the shadow of the allegation of one of the most heinous crimes known to man hovers over the wrongly accused parent for the rest of his or her life. This Article presents the problems associated with the use of false claims of abuse to sway determinations of child custody in a societal climate where the occurrence of such an ill act may become more prevalent. It then examines the state of the laws aimed at preventing this malfeasance and proposes elements that a law should have in order to better deter and redress the making of false accusations of abuse in child custody battles."
-Author requested to have his name removed from this reference; "Crying Wolf: The Use of False Accusations of Abuse to Influence Child Custodianship and a Proposal to Protect the Innocent," Jan 14, 2016, South Texas Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2015, retrieved Dec 16, 2016, [papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2715774]

I have been told that most divorce attorneys in child custody cases instruct women that they can bring up charges of abuse, whether they're true or not, either accusing the man of abuse against her or against the children, which will typically win the woman automatic custody of children and a court-ordered restraining order against the father. There doesn't need to be evidence in our current system; the woman just needs to CLAIM there was abuse, and she's automatically believed. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

Some (very few) researchers are looking into the current state of the law and how women have extreme privilege by simply dropping the word "abuse" in court. The reason they're looking at a change in the law in order to fix the problem is because there are currently no safe guards against vindictive women that use government, tax-funded resources for their own personal spite.

As a side note, please don't blame the lawyers in this particular instance. I've been told that lawyers can actually be sued for malpractice if they do not instruct women on their options. If a lawyer doesn't tell her she can drop the word "abuse" and get an immediate restraining order, then a lawyer can get in serious trouble.

I thought it was important to include this testimony of one of the surveyed male victims in a study published by the National Institutes of Health (carried out and authored by two female doctors):
"I have never hit my wife, but today I came close to doing this. It should be noted she has hit me more times than I can remember and kicked me. I grabbed her arms in self defense and held her to the floor. I am a very big and strong man, my wife is tall but thin, not strong at all. I know I will be the one who goes to jail even though she is the one hitting and kicking. I asked her why she hit me, and she said, 'because you're bigger than me.' I just felt vengeful for a second and slapped her back. It was the only time I hit her, ever. I cried because I was raised not to hit women, and I felt disappointed in myself that I had crossed that line."
-Denise A. Hines & Emily M. Douglas, "A Closer Look at Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism by Women," U.S. National Library of Medicine, Jan 1, 2010, DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.286, PMCID: PMC2913504, retrieved Sept 21, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913504]

It's sad that so many caring men like this are being arrested, abused, and humiliated, suffering almost daily torture at the hands of a woman for the sake of not losing his family. A man is not to hit a woman, even in self-defense, even though she yells and rails and nags and hits and bites and stabs; if he retaliates, he could lose his career, his family, and go to prison, and there are no organizations he can go to for help, so ladies, let me ask you again: What should he do? What options does he have? (i.e. This is a rhetorical question; meaning there is no answer, I just want women to consider it.)

The same study asked male victims of female abuse what happened during their last argument in which she attacked him physically, and here were some of the answers:
  • Tried to talk to her about it calmly, saying ‘now, if I did that to you, you'd call it abuse.’ She answered that she was defending her honor.
    [I find that interesting because that's what a Muslim would say. In our article "Islam: A Religion of Terror," I document Muslims killing family members, and justifying it by claiming it was to defend the honor of the family.]
  • I tell her that it is not acceptable for her to hit me, or yell at me, especially in front of the children. I also ask her to apologize.
  • She refused to give me my cell phone and car keys and wouldn't let me leave the house. When I took the car keys from her she called the cops and I was arrested and convicted.
  • I tried to leave and she hit me in the head with a flower pot, then took the phone from me to prevent me from calling anyone.
  • Tried to leave but was prevented. I had been injured earlier that day and was not able to physically defend myself.
  • She seemed to be panicking so I wrapped my arms around her... and tried to hold her still until she calmed down–she later said that my holding her that way was physically abusive.
  • Put my hands up to stop her hands from hitting my body and backed away.
  • Mostly I just sat there and took it and tried to act like I was above it.
The study continued to log other male victim reactions, including praying or writing in a journal in response to her aggression. Other men said they would attend to the children (i.e. calm them or protect them), try to get someone else to call the police, hitting a wall or object to work out their own aggression, or simply cleaning and bandaging their own wounds. Again, as food for thought for women: What is he supposed to do?

Most men and women would tell the man to leave her; in fact, I believe most Christians would say the same thing. However, the same study asked these men what prevented them from leaving her, and again, these are direct quotations from the male victims:
  • She spends every penny that comes in and has racked up thousands in debt. I would lose everything I've tried to save. Or at least half including half my retirement.
  • She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we work together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them (domestic situations being as difficult to ascertain as they are, men are guilty until proven innocent).
  • I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children in the long run.
  • ‘For better or for worse,’ and, well, this was worse. I didn't care that she was too psychologically disturbed to love me back, I didn't care. I loved her. And I hoped I could get help for her condition before it was too late.
  • I stay around to protect the children!
  • She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody.
    [We'll cover more on that later in the section entitled "The Illusion of a Rape Culture."]
  • She's mentally ill. I know she's not doing this on purpose. I know she loves me.
  • Concern for her well-being, [she can't] financially take care of herself.
Some men love their children, and don't want them to suffer at her hands and mouth, and so will give their lives for their children. Others still love her, even when she uses him and abuses him, and gives his life to try and help her. For the crime of loving their families, keeping their oaths, and trying to be good fathers and husbands, many men are being arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because a woman's word trumps evidence in the American (feminist) legal system. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

"In 2001, as a follow-up to the Dispatches survey, Dewar Research, a private research initiative, in collaboration with Dr Malcolm George of London University, decided to carry out a further qualitative study of the domestic abuse of men in England and Wales, and Ireland, by female partners. The results... are based on the responses of 100 male victims, 49 from England and Wales and 51 from Ireland... Male victims face particular difficulties, with almost no publicly funded support services specifically for them, and little public or official sympathy. Indeed, they often face antagonism by the police and social agencies, as evidenced by the significant proportions of male victims who are themselves arrested after seeking help. A large proportion of father victims are forced to leave the family home, whilst their children remain with the violent mother, and subsequently face considerable difficulties in maintaining meaningful or any contact with the children. The cumulative effect of highlighting the plight only of women victims of domestic violence in public and official policies over the last three decades, whilst no doubt helping many genuine female victims, has also clearly served to ignore or marginalise the plight of genuine male victims and their children."
-M.J. George & D.J. Yarwood, "Male Domestic Violence Victims Survey," Dewar Research, October, 2004, retrieved Sept 20, 2016, [dewar4research.org/DOCS/mdv.pdf]

If we saw women being antagonized by police for reporting being abused by their husbands, or if we saw women being arrested for reporting being attacked by a man, it would be abhorrent to everyone in our society. However, it happens to men all the time, and almost no one even stops to consider it.

Our current justice system is following the whims of evil women into alienating men and destroying families without any burden of proof that is normally required in a court of law. Of course there are women who tell the truth about abusive men in effort to protect their families, but until we return to our basic constitutional premise of "innocent until proven guilty," women will get away with destroying the lives of men by crying: "abuse!"

The Bible does not condone the beating of women and children, and I believe men who are physically abusive should be prosecuted by the law if things get out of control and he is beyond help from his family and friends, but the fact is that women seem to be MORE prone to violence than men, so where is the prosecution of abusive women? This problem gets even worse when we hear the stories of girls who cried “rape.”



 

At the beginning, we read Feminist.com's list of things feminists are claimed to be fighting for, among them are "human rights," and how the dictionary defines feminism as advocating for "right of women equal to those of men," but as we can see, that's a lie. Feminists couldn't care less about the rights of people; they only care about the rights of themselves, but more importantly, they want men to give feminists special rights above all others.

In a video I included in the introduction to this article (of feminists blocking entrance to a men's forum), many women were screaming profanities at men and police (such lady-like behavior), and you'll notice they keep accusing the speaker of the meeting, and every man who attends, of being a rapist. This is not uncommon. A feminist blogger, who claims she was raped (although if you read the vague description, it sounds incredibly far-fetched), says that all men are rapists by default:
"Let me tell you sisters, all men are disgusting animals, PIGS! Every time a man sees a woman, he undresses her in his mind, and that is the first offense. It's the precursor to rape; he is premeditating rape. Even if he doesn't go through with it, he has the mind of a rapist. It's no different from a man pointing a gun at you. He shows intent even if he fails to pull the trigger."
-Annemarie R. Weissberg, "All Men Are Rapists!" Femminist-Fatale, Dec 4, 2012, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [thefemministfatale.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/all-men-are-rapists]
Just taking a look at some of these feminists, I believe the willful degeneration of their health, enormous body fat, and violent/vicious demeanors is more than enough to keep any rapist at bay. Feminist journalist for The Guardian Newspaper, Julie Bindel, posted just about the same thing on her public twitter account:
"Dear misogynist trolls I'm going to make things easier for you - save u some time. All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot"
-Julie Bindel, quoted by Paul Bois, "Feminist: 'All Men Are Rapists'," Truth Revolt, Aug 15, 2016, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [truthrevolt.org/news/feminist-all-men-are-rapists]

I'd like to point out that she is including myself, and all my Christian brothers, in that statement, who make an effort to love our wives and mothers as the Bible instructs us; that we all should be put in prison and shot. I'm also automatically accused of raping or wanting to rape women, even though I've never done the deed, nor can I recall any thoughts of doing the deed when among women, but isn't it wonderful that we have feminists around to tell us men that we are genetically predisposed to beat and rape women?

Where is all this hostility coming from? Why are innocent men being accused of doing something they obviously didn't do? Most of this deception is born out of false statistics and lies that have convinced gullible women that we (in the U.S.) live in a "rape culture."

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

I'm going to state this as delicately as I can: The United States is NOT a rape culture. In the U.S., rape is not prevalent, nor is it normal and excused by our government and the media. The fact that a feminist would try to convince people that we are in a rape culture only shows what evil liars they are, and I want everyone to see the facts.

The Indian Journal of Psychiatry gives clear examples of true rape cultures in foreign countries like India and Africa:
"Various cultures describe certain forms of sexual violence that are condemned and other forms that may be tolerated to a degree, the culturally legitimized forms of violence thus giving rise to a continuum with transgressive coercion [socially accepted forced compliance] at one end to tolerated coercion at the other. For example, in South Africa, only the rape of white women was prosecuted under an apartheid system, while sexual violence against black women was accepted as a part of life. Childhood marriages in certain parts of rural India involve marriage and sexual relationship with a girl who is not yet an adult. It, thus, amounts to sexual coercion and is considered illegal. However, the entire issue is sanctioned by personal laws defined by individuals who partake in such marriages as condoned by Khap Panchayats [i.e. Indian village union] who decide on marriage partners in certain parts of North India. Similarly, sexual violence is considered legitimate by young men in South Africa who also believe that mental health is negatively affected by lack of sex."
-Gurvinder Kalra & Dinesh Bhugra, "Sexual violence against women: Understanding cross-cultural intersections," Indian Journal of Psychiatry, Jul-Sept, 2013, p. 244-249, U.S. National Library of Medicine, PMCID: PMC3777345, DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.117139, retrieved Sept 29, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777345/#ref7]

So before we get into statistics, let's ask a few questions to test the cognitive reasoning of feminists:
  1. Is the rape of women legal in the U.S.? No.
  2. Are women prevented from prosecuting their rapist in the U.S.? No.
  3. Do U.S. courts grant innocent verdicts to rapists? No.
  4. Does the U.S. government allow the marriage to little girls for men to have sexual intercourse with them? No.
  5. Does the U.S. media and public school system teach young men and women that rape is necessary to upkeep men's mental health? No.
None of these things happen in the U.S. In fact, I've never met one person in the U.S. who thinks that rape is socially acceptable in any fashion. So how is the U.S. a rape culture? Rape is not normalized here, and it's not excused in the media. Many feminists will try to deceive people on the statistics to say that rape is common, but this is only because they have been deceived, or I would rather say, they have ALLOWED themselves to be deceived (i.e. willful ignorance) by other feminist authors who are flat-out liars, and are even trying to change the definition of "rape" in order to convict all men of it.

Barack Obama, who has become infamous for his dishonesty and deception in the policies he has approved which have helped to enslave our nation, gave a speech in 2014, in which he said:
"Today, we're taking another important step with a focus on our college campuses. It is estimated that 1 in 5 women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there — 1 in 5. These young women worked so hard just to get into college, often their parents are doing everything they can to help them pay for it. So when they finally make it there only to be assaulted, that is not just a nightmare for them and their families, it's an affront to everything they've worked so hard to achieve. It's totally unacceptable."
-Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President and Vice President at an Event for the Council on Women and Girls," The White House (whitehouse.gov), Jan 22, 2014, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2c81dSs]

This is very strange to me because for a few years I lived spitting distance away from Ohio State University's college campus; I was right on the edge of it. I frequently traveled through it, and I had many female friends who lived on campus because they attended school there. I never once heard of anyone being raped while I lived there for four years (nor anyone who had heard of anyone who had been raped), and around every corner there was an emergency station that had a phone and button to press for emergency campus security help in case of attack, so as far as I could tell, this was one of the most secure and safest places for a young woman to walk.

If the statistics were true, I should have not only heard about rapes, but, statistically speaking, I should have met more women who had personally been raped on campus, or at least met others who knew someone who been raped on campus. Something isn't right here. As unsurprising as it may be, it turns out Obama just repeated what he was told by feminists, and those feminists learned it from one feminist who pulled the numbers out of a rigged survey. (We'll see the details of that later.)

In 2014, the same year Obama gave his speech, the U.S. Department of Justice released a special report (NCJ 248471) on rape and sexual assault among college-age females that were taken from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) between the years of 1995-2013. They found that the rate of rape among students was 6.1 per 1,000, or in other words, whereas Obama was claiming that there was a 20% rape rate among college students, in reality, there was only a 0.6% rape rate, which is 1 in 164, not 1 in 5.
(See Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf])

It's also interesting to note that, according to this study:
"For both college students and nonstudents, the offender was known to the victim in about 80% of rape and sexual assault victimizations."
-Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]

Typically, when we think of a woman being raped on campus, the average person thinks of a complete stranger wearing all black and hiding in the bushes along a path in a dark area, and he jumps out of the brush, grabs the woman, and violently rapes her off the path. In fact, this is not how most rape occurs, and as the report continues to point out:
"Most (51%) student rape and sexual assault victimizations occurred while the victim was pursuing leisure activities away from home,"
-Sofi Sinozich & Lynn Langton, "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013," U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 248471, December, 2014, p. 1, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf]

So the scenario in which the stranger jumps out of the bushes to capture and rape a woman walking home at night is actually more around 1 in 1600 students, taking into consideration that only 1 in 5 rapes are strangers, and only half of those could be categorized in transit (i.e. not pursuing leisure activities). These numbers are FAR lower than feminists would lead us to believe, but they continue to deceive the public with fake, made-up statistics that will help their ridiculous agenda of shaming and destroying men.

Feminist author Jessica Valenti, in a blog post she wrote called "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One," which conveniently had no statistics on it, said:
"Rape is as American as apple pie—until we own that, nothing will change."
-Jessica Valenti, "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One," The Nation, Jan 4, 2013, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [thenation.com/article/americas-rape-problem-we-refuse-admit-there-one]

Valenti believes there is a rape culture in America, when there isn't, and so encourages readers to EMBRACE A LIE in order to incite change. These kinds of statements are extremely common in the feminist movement, and what is more common is the lack of actual statistics and proper referencing to sources to back up their claims.

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

I'm pausing this quote to mention that, on hearing the 1 in 4 stat, I too found it to be absurd. Growing up, I've had many groups of friends in various places at various times, and this just doesn't match up with what I've seen. I've talked with women who have been abused or raped, but it is much rarer in my experience, and of those who I have known to have been raped, it did not happen on college campus. The numbers are just not anywhere close to what feminists commonly claim it to be.

The problem is that the stats feminists keep regurgitating aren't about rape; they're about regret after fornication and adultery (i.e. sex with consent):
"'When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why [Mary] Koss's [1985 Ms. Magazine] approach was unsound. He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered 'yes' to the question 'Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?' That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been 'administered' an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him."
-Christina H. Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women, Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 212, ISBN: 9780684801568

"I immediately regret my decision" is not a legitimate excuse to destroy another man's life. It is for this express reason that men's rights groups are spreading out these types of images to start countering the feminist propaganda:

I would like to once again point out: if you don't get involved drinking alcohol at all, you won't run into these problems in the first place.
(Read "The Bible vs Alcohol" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If you simply think about the definition of rape being changed to someone giving someone else a drink of alcohol, as Koss (above) attempted to do, then the logic of the situation gets thrown right out the window. It would mean if a man and a woman are sharing two drinks, he pays for the first round, she pays for the second, and they choose to have sex, then they are both raping each other, which makes NO sense whatsoever.

The Problem with Drunk Driving Advertisements

In the United States, we have had quite a few drunk driving advertisements pop up in the last 30 years because driving under the influence (DUI) has become a problem due to the lowered moral standards in the 60s and 70s, and the fact that vehicles were being designed for speed and convenience over safety. (i.e. No more steel framed vehicles so they can go faster; research Studebaker.) People driving drunk were beginning to cause a huge amount of injury and death to other drivers, including my own parents, who were almost killed by a drunk driver when I was young.

Anti-drunk driving advertisements almost always feature men in the driver's seat, and that's often because statistics have shown that about 85% of DUI arrests are male, and so feminists jump on this to preach that it is a "male" problem. What is not considered in these statistics is that women typically go to the same bars men go to, but women travel in groups and will go home with a male driver (i.e. they expect the man to drive them), so the commercials don't ever portray a drunk woman in the passenger seat who is aiding and abetting the drunk driver.

There are African and Hispanic men and women who get arrested for drunk driving, but PSAs (public service announcements) that are paid for by tax dollars, almost always target white males. The reason for this is because if you target anyone but white males, there is public outrage for racism or sexism, and this is because no one ever gets fired for attacking or shaming white men.

This image is a group of screen shots I took from videos when I searched for drunk driving PSAs on Youtube, and you'll notice that it's mostly white men. I just went down through the list and looked at about ten of them, and I only found one video among those I reviewed that had a woman driving the car drunk. Other videos I found were showing victims instead of the drivers, and to pull at the heart strings of viewers, women were mostly portrayed as the victims.

The point I'm making is that if these ads only portrayed black men, someone would have noticed, and organizations (e.g. Black Lives Matter) would have started protests or riots over it. If these ads only portrayed women, someone would have noticed, and organizations (e.g. National Organization of Women) would have started protests or riots over it. However, because it's white males, there is not a group to give them a voice, and so demonizing them is fair game for anyone.

In addition to the advertising problem, as we've already demonstrated in the earlier section on "The Illusion of Male Privilege," courts and police officers are MUCH lighter on females than males. Women more often get off with warnings, and courts typically give a woman less sentencing for the same crime as a man, but honest advertising that showed those differences would get someone fired because it reveals too much FEMALE privilege, and paints women in a light that doesn't favor the feminist/communist agenda.

It's interesting to note that Sommers goes on to point out that only 25% of the surveyed women considered the incident as rape, and of that quarter, 40% of them chose to have sex with the accused man later afterwards. Continued sexual intercourse is not a normal relationship pattern rape victims develop with their rapist, so obviously, the stats were loaded in order to create the illusion of a rape culture, which in turn furthers the agenda of perverted feminists who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

And again, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning:
The feminist movement is an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their choices.

For feminists to claim that the involvement of alcohol somehow automatically excludes women from moral responsibility is insane, and does not coincide with any known law or regulation. If a driver crashes her car into another driver's car, that's bad and there are consequences, but if she crashes her car into another driver's car while intoxicated, that's really bad and there are far greater consequences, so saying that the involvement of alcohol rids one of responsibility for their actions is totally illogical and flat-out stupid.

If women get a pass, meaning that drinking alcohol gives them immunity to consequences, and the feminists want equality, why not give the same to men? If a man drinks too much alcohol, and he rapes a woman, why is he not given immunity to consequences? Certainly, a man who drinks too much and rapes a woman should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but a woman who drinks too much and chooses to have sex shouldn't be able to lie and get away with it simply because feminists have called the U.S. a "rape culture."

The phrase "rape culture" didn't even become a popular term until after a documentary came out in 1975, entitled (you guessed it) "Rape Culture," but what's fascinating about the timing is that while they were filming this documentary, rape was punishable by death in the U.S. It wasn't until 1977 (Coker v. Georgia) that the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was "grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime," and I would agree with that, but only under certain circumstances based on what the Bible tells us about God's punishment of rapists.
(See "Rape Culture: The Movie," retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdVENIVaJY]; See also Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 1977, retrieved Sept 1, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2bUsLZW])

Thankfully, because of the Lord Jesus Christ, we do not have to adhere to the punishments concerning the statutes of God's law, but in the days of the Jews in the Old Testament, if a man forced himself onto a woman (i.e. rape), and she was already betrothed or married to another man, the rapist was to be put to death. This means that a death sentence was justified in this instance, however:

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

There are a few things we need to consider here; first of all, that if a man rapes a woman and takes her virginity, which at the time in Israel was a very valuable asset, he basically has stripped her of the value she needed to land a good, wealthy husband. If you execute the rapist, how does that give justice to the woman who has been robbed? The rape is not just assault; it's theft.

In the Bible, a thief didn't go to jail; he had to pay back four to five times what he stole, and this was to compensate the victim. Today, thieves get thrown in prison, but they typically don't end up paying back what they stole, and they definitely don't have to pay back multiple times what they stole; in a nutshell, the victims don't get compensation for the crime against them as they did under God's law.

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

The problem is that you can't compensate a woman for something as precious as her virginity because once it's gone, you can't get it back. Thus, her virginity was valued at the rapist's life, in that if she was already married or promised to another, she would be taken care of and the rapist would pay with his life via execution, or if she wasn't married or promised, not only would he have to pay the family a dowry payment (50 shekels was a very hefty sum for most people), but he would also have to marry her, care for her, and provide for her for the remainder of his life, being unable, according to the law, to divorce her for any reason. This means the rapist had to pay his victim with his life one way or another.

Sadly, our government does not punish rapists the same as thieves, forcing the attacker to be servant to the victim for the remainder of his life. That would certainly deter a lot of crime. However, what's even sadder is that many women are lying about being raped, and changing the definition of rape, to the point that men are now becoming afraid of being near women at all.

But I want to emphasize that, if our culture was a "rape culture" that was ruled over by these terrible rapist men (which feminists call "the patriarchy"), then why did the Federal Government and 16 states declare execution as punishment for rape in 1971? If you were a man who was raping women, why would you pass a law that would give you harsher punishment if you got arrested for rape? It doesn't make any sense does it? The reason this makes no sense is because feminists are LYING, both to us and to themselves, about the U.S. being a "rape culture."

It's insulting to women in Africa, a real rape culture, for these privileged feminist liars to claim they are in a rape culture. TIME Magazine reported statistics taken from human-rights organizations that estimated over 40% of African women being raped in their lifetime, and that women are punished for being raped. THAT is a rape culture, and it's an insult to the African women for privileged, self-righteous feminists in America to feign a connection to their situation.
(See Lee Middleton, "'Corrective Rape': Fighting a South African Scourge," TIME, Mar 8, 2011, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2057744,00.html])

The hateful feminist Jessica Valenti, who I quoted above about rape and apple pie, participated in a debate against a woman by the name of Wendy McElroy, who revealed some interesting facts in her investigative journalism:
MCELROY "There are parts of Afghanistan, for example, where women... are murdered for men's honor, they are raped, and when they are raped, they are arrested for it, and they are shunned by their family afterward. Now that's a rape culture, but that is not North America! It doesn't resemble North America. Here, rape is a crime that is severely punished; even the accusation of sexual harassment can ruin someone's career and their lives... the messages sent to men today is not that it's okay to rape; it's the opposite, and according to the... Department of Justice, rape and sexual assault have decreased by more than half since 1993, so why aren't we celebrating? North America is not a rape culture, and it is an insult to women who live in one that women here, with so much freedom and so much opportunity, are trying to share the same status with them.
I often hear statistics meant to prove to me that things are far, far worse for women here than I'm making out, but there are problems with the statistics used to support a rape culture. Many researchers have tried to find out where they come from, what they're based on, and it is an incredibly hard task. For example, a recently circulated claim is that 8% of college men have either attempted or successfully raped, and I'll be dwelling on this stat for a reason. Some associates and I have tried to track it down, and it's typical of what happens over and over again when people try to track down these stats and find out 'where are they based, what are they rooted in?' A key reason why I find no evidence for systemic rape culture, only evidence of rapes committed by individuals, is because the data doesn't exist.
We traced the figure back to a book called Body Wars by the clinical psychologist Margo Maine... quote, '8% of college men have attempted or successfully raped, 30% say they would rape if they could get away with it. When the wording was changed to force a woman to have sex, the number jumped to 58%. Worse still, 83.5% argued that some women look like they are just asking to be raped.' End quote. I stumbled when I first read the 83.5% figure because it seemed improbable to me that a scientifically-based study, first of all, would ask that question, and second of all, that would be the result. And again, I'm a woman who's known an unusual amount violence; I'm hardly naive on this subject.
When the National Post, which is a major Canadian paper, decided to follow up on the questions we were raising about the stats in Maine's book, a reporter contacted her. She was largely unable to give her sources. There was one study she reported, and to quote the book again, 'In one study over half of high school boys and nearly half of the girls stated that rape was acceptable if the male was sexually aroused.' End quote. No one, including Maine, was able to come up with that study! No one has found it yet! When pressed, Maine emailed the National Post, basically saying she didn't know where it came from, she didn't know why it hadn't been cited, and she was too busy to bother. Well, I'm too busy to bother giving it credibility.
"

There are things about McElroy's speech that I applaud, but keep in mind that there are also things she said and didn't say that are still serious error and bias. First, I applaud her focus on facts, rather than ideological (i.e. theoretical ideas) nonsense, and she did very well in exposing the truth that many of these feminist authors quote from other feminist authors who made up the statistics in their books for the express purpose of pushing their hateful agenda. (i.e. Those authors are liars; she is exposing their lies.)

The problem is that McElroy is still a feminist, as she stated in the above video, and that means she still has an unbiblical, female-dominating worldview, and this is demonstrated when she said that claims about North America society being a rape culture, "is an insult to women who live in one." Don't misunderstand, I agree with this statement, and it does downgrade a real rape culture. The major problem is that Elroy doesn't bother to mention the victims of "rape culture" propaganda; she doesn't mention what this is doing to men, and most of these feminists don't care because, as I stated earlier, feminism has nothing to do with equality.
(McElroy does give an example of a man suffering at feminist accusations, but she gives no examples of false rape claims and how they have affected MEN specifically on a wide scale.)

To help demonstrate my point, let's briefly look at the story of Brian Banks:
"Brian Banks was 16 years old in the summer of 2002, a 6-foot-2, 220-pound linebacker with speed at powerhouse Long Beach Polytechnic High in Southern California, as promising a football player as any high school kid in the country. As one of the most highly recruited middle linebackers in the nation, he had a verbal commitment to play on full scholarship for Pete Carroll at USC. What could be better than that? 'I would go to these football camps and just dominate,' Banks says. 'I had my own mailbox at school because I was getting so many recruiting letters.' [In 2002] He was taking summer classes at his high school and left the classroom for what was supposed to be a quick call to a documentary crew preparing a feature on the rivalry with De La Salle High School in Northern California. 'I stepped outside to make the phone call and I ran into a classmate of mine,' Banks says. Her name was Wanetta Gibson. She was a friend. She was 15. 'We met, hugged, started talking and agreed to go to an area on our campus that was known as a make-out area,' Banks says. 'We went to this area and made out. We never had sex.' By the end of the day, Banks was in custody, accused of raping Gibson on the school's campus. But we never had sex, Banks pleaded. Nobody believed him. 'I was being arrested and accused of kidnapping and rape,' he says. 'I was taken into custody that same day and the judge put a bail on me that was too high for me to post bond. It was over $1 million.' He languished in juvenile hall for an entire year before his case came up. He was to be tried as an adult and if found guilty, faced 41 years to life. His football dreams effectively died that summer day in the stairwell of his school."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]

This was all over the news at the time; this man was arrested for rape, given a $1 million bail, and sat in juvenile hall for a year before he was sentenced 41 years to life,. But on what grounds was Banks sentenced? One woman made a CLAIM, without evidence, and Banks' life was ruined instantly, but what's really amazing to me is how such a thing could happen to someone who lives in a supposed "rape culture."

"Banks was offered a deal to plead guilty to one count of rape under the condition that the other charges would be dropped. He would then undergo a 90-day observation at Chino State prison and would be interviewed and evaluated by psychologists and counselors 'who would determine on a ladder system whether I would receive probation or three or six years prison,' Banks says. 'I was promised and guaranteed by my attorney that I would get probation if I took the plea. I was also told that if I didn't take it, I would more than likely be found guilty and receive life in prison.' He was 17 years old. 'Do I plead to a crime that I did not commit and receive a small sentence or do I roll the dice, risk my entire life behind bars for a crime I didn't commit?' he says. 'I realized that day, regardless of whatever my decision was, neither one of them was going home an innocent man.' All he could think about was getting his life back, going home, playing football, finishing his high school education, enrolling at USC. They put him in a room and gave him 10 minutes to make his decision. He sat there crying. 'I was unable to speak to my mom. I was denied that right,' he says... He underwent the 90-day observation. The psychologist and counselor recommended probation. The judge gave him six years. He had never been in trouble before, not even a speeding ticket... Banks lost 10 years of his life, a frightful five years and two months in prison followed by five years of high custody parole."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]

The real question is, did he do it? It turns out that even though he was sentenced and thrown in jail, having his life destroyed, the oh-so-innocent Wanetta Gibson LIED.

Banks came home from prison, and while checking his Facebook account saw a friend request from Gibson saying she wanted to "let bygones be bygones" and offered to "hook up." Banks saw an opportunity to hire a private investigator and get a confession from her about lying.

"Banks still doesn't know her reasoning for selling him down the river when she knew they never had sex and there was no DNA trace on her underwear. Maybe it was the $1.5 million she collected from the Long Beach school system, claiming it was an unsafe environment (the city is trying to recoup $2.6 million from her now). Banks thinks maybe Gibson was afraid her older sister, who went to the same high school, would find out she made out with him and tell her mother. Or that he would brag to friends. Maybe she thought he would just be suspended. He doesn't think she was trying to put him in jail.... 'We don't really know what the truth really is as to why she lied,' he says. 'I never really got a clear reason.'... He invited Wanetta Gibson to the investigator's office. They spoke with the investigator monitoring in another room. Banks wanted her to understand what she did to his life. He asked her to come back the second day to speak to the investigator. 'Did he rape you? Did he kidnap you?' the investigator asked. Banks said she laughed it off and said, 'Of course not. If he raped me, I wouldn't be here right now. We were just young and having a good time, being curious, then all these other people got involved and blew it out of proportion.' It was all on tape. Banks took it to the California Innocence Project, which took his case and appealed it. One year later, three months before he was to come off parole, Banks was cleared. On May 24, 2012, the same Los Angeles Superior Court judge who had sentenced Banks to six years in prison when he begrudgingly accepted a plea bargain for a crime he did not commit after he was led to believe he would get probation, took less than one minute to dismiss his conviction."
-Gary Myers, "Brian Banks spent five years in prison after being falsely accused of rape, but now he finally has a career in NFL," New York Daily News, Jan 25, 2016, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-imprisoned-banks-career-nfl-article-1.2090727]

Banks was charged and sentenced on no evidence whatsoever; it was his word against hers. She lied, and not only destroyed a man's life, but collected $1.5 million dollars from the school! Who really had the power in that situation, was it the man or the woman?

I would also like to point out the obvious to those who live in the U.S. under a system that is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty," Banks had to prove his innocence. His life can be destroyed by one woman's word, but because a person is born a male, he cannot be trusted, and has to provide evidence of his innocence. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
-Proverbs 26:28

Of course, the feminists would come back and say that very few cases are ever the woman lying. For example, feminist man-hater Donna Zuckerberg, in an article she wrote claiming that false rape allegations are a myth, said:
"The most commonly accepted statistic is that 2-8 percent of rape allegations are false."
-Donna Zuckerberg, "He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation," Jezebel.com, Sept 30, 2015, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]

This is absurd for many reasons, first of all, the report Zuckerberg refers to was published by idaho.gov, and it stated that their statistics showed 2-10%, not 2-8%, which was based on a limited study of 136 cases, which means she didn't even have her numbers correct from the report. Second, I'd like to point out that's a 500% margin of error on the part of the study, so how reliable is this study in the first place?

On her website, commenters began to complain about her numbers, claiming that she was seriously wrong about what she stated. Zuckerberg then partially corrected herself:
"To be clear, I didn't mean to endorse this statistic as fact, although I see now that the paragraph break makes it look that way... I don't know if it's right."
-Donna Zuckerberg, "He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation," Jezebel.com, Sept 30, 2015, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752]

First of all, when you quote a percentage number based on a study that is performed by a state agency, and then make a reference to it, you're stating it as a fact. I 100% believe that Zuckerberg is a liar, and she was trying to cover for her error because, after all, according to feminists, women can't be wrong. She then confessed that she had no idea whether what she wrote was right or not, but found it convenient to put it down anyway because the lie helped people believe her feminist nonsense.

What's worse is that most feminists have taken this number, spread it around, and they all opt for the lowest integer (in favor of women, of course) and commonly claim only 2% of rape allegations are false. Some feminists also cite a 1996 FBI report that says:
"As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies 'unfound' the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The 'unfounded' rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were 'unfounded,' while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."
-Crime in the U.S., 1996, DIANE Publishing, 1997, p. 24, ISBN: 9780788121609

Feminists see "2%," quickly scribble it down onto large pieces of cardboard, and then run around screaming it into bullhorns. The tricky word here is "unfounded," and we need to understand what this means to understand why these percentages do not have a basis in reality. The End Violence Against Women International group put out a bulletin explaining the difference between "unfounded" and "false:"
"According to UCR (Unfounded Crime Reports) guidelines, a reported offense can be cleared as unfounded 'if the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor was attempted.' These [unfounded] cases thus remain as official crime reports and are included in the departmental statistics on sexual assault crimes that are reported to the UCR... UCR guidelines are clear that a report can only be determined to be false on the basis of evidence that the crime was not committed or attempted."
-End Violence Against Women International, "Unfounding: False vs. Baseless Reports," retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=56]

So unless evidence is brought forth that proves the accuser (i.e. the woman) is lying, it is listed as "unfounded," which automatically gets added to the number of rape cases in these statistics. This means that even if no evidence is presented that a rape has occurred, it's still counted in the number of rapes, or in other words, a man will have a rape connected to his personal record simply by a woman's CLAIM of rape, unless he provides evidence that's he's innocent. (i.e. Guilty until proven innocent--where's the male privilege?) However, most feminists don't care if the numbers are true or not, as long as the number reads in a way that makes women look good, they continue their hateful crusade to destroy men by screaming lies at the top of their lungs.

In 1993, Newsweek reported that:
"A third of the DNA scans now routinely done in new rape investigations are nonmatches."
-Newsweek, "Genetics in the Courtroom," Jan 10, 1993, retrieved Sept 2, 2016, [newsweek.com/genetics-courtroom-192258]

It's important for us to understand what this means. A woman accuses a man of rape, in which seminal fluid is analyzed during the investigation, and the DNA results find that 1 in 3 women were lying (or mistaken) about the accused man. The Newsweek article was reporting old cases that were being reanalyzed with DNA testing, and innocent men were being exonerated after spending many years in prison for something they didn't do.

I say "mistaken" because it is possible for a woman to look at a lineup and attempt to identify her attacker, but get the wrong guy. However, I don't focus on this much because, as we covered earlier, most rapes do not happen in the circumstance of a man jumping out of the bushes in the dark; most rapes happen by those the victim knows personally, and usually during leisure activities.

It should be noted that this kind of false accusation has been going on for thousands of years, as the book of Genesis tells us concerning Joseph. Joseph was put in charge of all the property of a master's house, and the master's wife tried to lure him in to sleep with her, but Joseph refused her repeated advances.

There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
-Genesis 39:9-10

She then tried to trap him:

And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. [i.e. no eye-witness = no evidence] And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
-Genesis 39:11-12

The woman, in her embarrassment and frustration from being turned down, and likely to protect herself, lied about Joseph:

And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.
-Genesis 39:13-15

In a nutshell, she went to the other men and lied, crying "rape!" She said the same to her husband too:

And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.
-Genesis 39:16-20

However, before jumping to conclusions, the Bible only says that the master's wrath was kindled (ignited) after hearing his wife's words, but it doesn't say his wrath was kindled against Joseph. I have long suspected that the master didn't believe his wife, but because she went and told the other men about the issue, the master had to do something about it for social/political reasons. I suspect the master actually believed Joseph was innocent in the matter, and that he knew his own wife was deceptive and untrustworthy, but had to throw him in prison to satisfy the public; sound familiar?

In 1994, Dr. Eugene Kanin published a study of a small community with a population of 70,000 people, and between the years of 1978 and 1987 (nine years), he found 109 reported cases of rape. Out of 109 reports, 45 of them (41%) were false reports in which the woman lied about an innocent man:
"These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration [unwelcome departure from the norm], as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 81, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

In case you may not have understood what he said, feminists are claiming that women who lie to save themselves from embarrassment or guilt are very rare (2%), but the actual studies are showing that women lying to save themselves stress or grief is quite common, to the point that police ought to be expecting it to be normal for women to lie. I used to have a video here that showed numerous TV news reports to give examples, but the account on Youtube was closed right before I published this article. Thankfully, I was able to write down a transcript of the news recordings, and here's what they said:
REPORT #1: "It was the middle of the day back on February 19th [2016] when Cassandra Tucker called police... to say she had been robbed and sexually assaulted by someone impersonating a police officer. Tucker said the suspect was driving an unmarked Crown Vic[toria] and had red and blue flashing lights in his dash. The victim alleged she had been violated in several ways and so police took her to the emergency room to complete a rape kit. Tucker also told officers the suspect had stolen $150 cash from her purse, but on the way back from the hospital, Tucker told police she was really just trying to buy illegal drugs, that after she had spent her boyfriend's money on something else, she decided to file the false police report."
REPORT #2: "This police interview with a Fort Collins woman, she was later convicted for making phony rape accusations, and the man she accused was arrested and put in jail one year ago today. Tonight, he is speaking to 7News reporter Lindsey Watts about why he is still struggling to pick up the pieces. Accused of rape, cuffed at the police station the day before Thanksgiving; watching it back one year later, Dustin Toth says his life still feels out of control. His accuser, Catherine Bennett, a co-worker he'd started dating; this is an exclusive video of her police interview as Toth sat in jail, her story fell apart... Bennett, later convicted of making it all up, she was sentenced to 35 days in jail, then an ankle monitor and probation. Toth says he's the one who's been punished. The Army National Guardsman lost his civilian job and was out of work for nearly six months after the arrest... [Toth said:] 'I feel like I'm incapable to actually trust a woman again... giving me the opportunity to share it, gives me the opportunity to clear my name because I still feel like my name is not cleared.'"
REPORT #3: "A man who spent a decade in prison for a crime he didn't do is awarded more than half a million dollars under a new Washington law. His name is Thomas Kennedy. He was released from prison two years ago, after his daughter admitted she lied about being raped. A judge has ordered the state to pay $520,000 under Washington's Wrongful Conviction Compensation Act... Thomas Kennedy tells me the money doesn't even begin to make up for everything he's been through, but he does believe it will help give him a fresh start... Kennedy spent 3,242 days in prison... wrongly convicted of raping his then 11-year-old daughter... his daughter later admitted she made it up. [Kennedy:] 'She still hasn't forgiven herself yet for it. That's what I'd like to see her get over.' After nearly a decade behind bars, he was released from his sentence in 2012... but he says life on the outside has been tough. 'My job situation has been whatever work I could find wherever I could get it, like the load of trash in the back of my truck today; it makes money.'... Kennedy plans to invest into his grandon's future... 'To me, the money is great, and I'm very thankful for that, but moreso, I'm thankful for the justice system doing what they can, admitting that they did wrong. That, to me, is priceless.'"
-Epic Feminist Fails, "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation #6," retrieved Oct 20, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=aqj0cNMIB6M]

It's fascinating that, had the young man in Report #2 actually committed the rape he was falsely accused of, he would have had decades in prison. The woman who lied about him only got 35 days in jail, and was then released on probation. (i.e. A slap on the wrist because she's a woman who has FEMALE privilege.)

The man in Report #3 suffered almost ten years in prison on behalf of his lying daughter. Feminists believe that such men are incredibly evil, and I'm sure during his case, feminists looked down on him with disgust, but all this "evil man" wanted after ten years of suffering was for his daughter to forgive herself.

A local news station reported that a female college student arrested for DUI (i.e. drunk driving) tried to get out of it by accusing the arresting officer of rape, but a hidden vest cam revealed her lies. Another news station reported a 13-year-old girl who claimed in tears over a 911 call that she was raped by a man with a knife, triggering police officers to pull out all their resources (including a helicopter) to look for the suspect, but it turns out after picking a man out of a lineup, she confessed to lying, trying to avoid getting in trouble for being out late with a boy down the street; police officers said there was no remorse in her at all.
(See "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation #5," Sept 20, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxs4BcHg4])

(The following video shows examples of false rape accusations, including a filmed incident in which there is a lot of strong language used, so please only watch this with discretion.)

In the latter part of the video, a cab driver was accused of rape by a group of drunk girls who decided to light up cigarettes in his vehicle as he drove them home, which he told them was a $500 fine. The girls refused to pay the cab driver or the fine, called the police, and accused him of rape. The police would have arrested him on the spot, but he had a hidden camera in the car, showed them the video, and they decided not to arrest him.

However, the police didn't arrest the girls either. The cab driver was angry saying that he would have lost his job, gone to jail, and possibly lost his wife if he hadn't had video evidence to defend himself, but the police didn't seem to care and left the scene without arresting anyone because after all, they're women, so they can do no wrong. (i.e. FEMALE privilege) The cab driver filed a law suit against the girls, and I personally hope he won.

In U.S. society, if a woman sheds tears, she's automatically innocent, and the man is automatically guilty. Welcome to male privilege.

Laurie Ann Martinez, a 36-year-old psychologist for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, faked her own rape:
"She split her own lip with a pin, scraped her knuckles with sandpaper and had her friend punch her in the face. Investigators say she even ripped open her blouse, then wet her pants to give the appearance she had been knocked unconscious. But it was all part of what authorities said Friday was an elaborate hoax by the woman to convince her husband she was raped so they could move to a safer neighborhood... Missing from her home were two laptop computers, Martinez's purse, an Xbox video game console, a camera and numerous credit cards that Martinez said the stranger had stolen. In reality, the items were all at the home of her friend, Nicole April Snyder, authorities allege. Investigators say Martinez had Snyder punch her in the face with boxing gloves they bought for that purpose. Martinez began crying hysterically when police arrived, according to court papers."
-New York Daily News, "California prison psychiatrist accused of faking her own rape," Associated Press, Dec 10, 2011, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [nydailynews.com/news/crime/california-prison-psychiatrist-accused-faking-rape-article-1.989640]

William McCaffrey, a construction worker, served four years in prison over a false rape accusation from so-called "victim" Biurny Peguero, who lied and said McCaffrey attacked her, causing bite marks on her skin. Peguero told news reporters that McCaffrey hit her, removed her pants, and raped her. McCaffrey is filing suit against the City of New York and the New York Police Department for ignoring evidence and making false claims about Peguero's wounds:
"The suit, which was filed on Wednesday and names police and prosecutors... Mr McCaffrey, from the Bronx, alleges that prosecutors 'impugned' his 'truthful evidence' regarding the bites in front of jurors, then sat on Peguero's recantation of her false allegations for two months after learning she had confessed to her priest, the New York Post reports. In addition, the suit says prosecutors 'continued to oppose McCaffrey's release' despite defence DNA testing that proved one of Peguero's friends, Aurora Pujols, had bitten her."
-Daily Mail, "Man who spent four years in jail for rape he didn't commit sues New York City for $30m," Mar 11, 2011, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365084/William-McCaffrey-sues-New-York-City-30m-false-rape-claim.html]

This indicates that, likely, Peguero was so mean and vicious, she was getting into fights with all her friends and/or boyfriends, and to cover up her drunken stupor, and to get revenge, she falsely accused McCaffrey of rape. McCaffrey sued for $30 million, one third against the police department for covering up evidence, but sadly, that doesn't punish the police, it punishes the citizens of New York. (i.e. Police officers involved should be fired, at minimum, but they won't be.) Peguero was sentenced to only three years in prison, but can get out early for good behavior, especially since she's a mother of two. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

Joseph Frey was wrongly convicted of raping a female student in Wisconsin and spent 20 years in jail for it, until the case was re-opened with DNA evidence that cleared him of any involvement. When he was arrested, he told the police he was nowhere near her home, and they had no evidence that linked him to the scene, but because the public was outraged at the time and demanded justice, the resulting witch hunt led to his immediate conviction of a crime he didn't commit. Frey was released, but with nothing, no home and no possessions except the clothes on his back.
(See Mike Lowe, "Wisconsin man wrongly convicted still hasn't found ultimate freedom," Nov 5, 2013, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [fox6now.com/2013/11/05/wisconsin-man-wrongly-convicted-still-hasnt-found-ultimate-freedom])

Teenager Tyler Kost was arrested and thrown in jail for allegedly raping 13 girls between 2009-2014, all between the ages of 13 and 17, but Kost's lawyers have recently uncovered what they call a "treasure trove" of evidence that he didn't rape any of those girls. Based on written evidence on their social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter, the girls were all former girlfriends of Kost, and conspired together to frame Kost, all of them getting together to watch the movie John Tucker Must Die, which is about women getting revenge on a man they were all dating at the same time. The girls stated, "He [Tyler Kost] needs to be taught a lesson" and that it's "gonna be so much fun! <3" Kost's attourneys have analyzed 98,000 pages of social media documentation, which was from only five out of the thirteen girls, and they are now requesting court permission to analyze the rest of the eight girls' accounts; a new trial is scheduled for Kost in February 2017.
(See Daily Mail, "Lawyers for teen accused of raping 13 girls claim they were inspired by high school movie John Tucker Must Die and framed him because he was 'a player'," Apr 7, 2015, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [http://dailym.ai/1FSjN75]; See also AZ Channel 3 News, "San Tan Valley serial rape suspect back in jail," Aug 7, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [azfamily.com/story/32705001/san-tan-valley-serial-rape-suspect-back-in-jail])

Another news station reported a woman who claimed a police officer pulled her out of her car and frisked her with sexual intent by grabbing her breasts and reaching under her dress, but the video of the traffic stop showed that she never exited the car and he never touched her, to which she admitted she lied to get revenge over a traffic ticket. In another report, a 22-year-old Oregon woman lied about being raped by five men in the woods, costing the county a lot of resources in hunting for the rapists; she confessed to her lie, but the department has been unable to determine why she lied.
(See "Feminist False Rape Accusation Compilation #3," Aug 30, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=NfmJjohBgrE])

A woman contacted the police and said she was raped, and a few days later, she pointed out Ross Currier as the assailant, so the police, without any questioning or due process, arrested him and threw him in jail. The woman later discovered that it was another man who assaulted her (she made a mistake), and Currier had an alibi that he was at home with his fiancee the night of the attack. Today, Currier is demanding a formal apology from the police, which they are thus far refusing, and Currier's career as a tax accountant has been crushed because he can't find work. (i.e. Anyone typing his name into a search engine pulls up immediate links to sexual assault, which is how I found this story.)
(See Travis Andersen, "Man wants apology after assault arrest," Boston Globe, Apr 9, 2014, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2dBpLXE])

Nowadays, it doesn't even take a woman lying about herself, but other women can lie for her, as we can see from former Colorado State athlete Grant Neal, who was charged with rape, and he is now suing the U.S. government for gender discrimination. Neal and a female student were having unprotected sexual intercourse, during which she stopped him and asked him to wear protection, which he did, and the female student told a friend about it the next day. The female friend said it was rape, contacted college authorities and reported a rape without the knowledge of the female student, and even though both Neal and the female student Neal was with that night told the school board that no rape took place, the school refused to listen, and proceeded with prosecuting Neal for sexual assault. (Neal lost his athletic scholarships, and no other school will admit him--where's the male privilege?)
(See Max Kutner, "Suspended College Athlete Suing U.S. Over Sexual Assault 'Guidance'," Newsweek, Apr 4, 2016, retrieved Sept 30, 2016, [newsweek.com/grant-neal-lawsuit-sexual-assault-pueblo-450334])

If you can't see the FEMALE privilege yet, let's look again at Dr. Kanin's 1994 study (41% of women lied), which specifically states that these false reports in which the woman lied were not from lack of evidence, but the women involved later openly admitted they lied. These numbers get more interesting when we look at the reasons they gave for why they lied:
"Of the 45 cases of false charges, over one-half (56%, n = 27) served the complainants' need to provide a plausible explanation for some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate consequence of a consensual encounter, usually sexual, with a male acquaintance... Representative cases include the following:
An unmarried 16-year-old female had sex with her boyfriend and later became concerned that she might be pregnant. She said she had been raped by an unknown assailant in the hopes that the hospital would give her something to abort the possible pregnancy.
A married 30-year-old female reported that she had been raped in her apartment complex. During the polygraph examination, she admitted that she was a willing partner. She reported that she had been raped because her partner did not stop before ejaculation, as he had agreed, and she was afraid she was pregnant. Her husband is overseas."

-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 85-86, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

So the true purpose behind these lies is to hide fornication and adultery, and if Christians, both men and women, will simply follow God's commandments, we won't run into these problems:

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

Fornication is defined in Scripture as sex outside of marriage:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
-1 Corinthians 7:2

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
-Ephesians 5:3

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption... Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
-2 Peter 2:12-15

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
-Hebrews 13:4

Let's continue looking at more reasons women lie. These quotes are a bit long, but they're worth reading:
"A divorced female, 25 years of age, whose parents have custody of her 4-year-old child. She lost custody at the time of her divorce when she was declared an unfit mother. She was out with a male friend and got into a fight. He blackened her eye and cut her lip. She claimed she was raped and beaten by him so that she could explain her injuries. She did not want to admit she was in a drunken brawl, as this admission would have jeopardized her upcoming custody hearing.
A 16-year-old complainant, her girlfriend, and two male companions were having a drinking party at her home. She openly invited one of the males, a casual friend, to have sex with her. Later in the evening, two other male acquaintances dropped in and, in the presence of all, her sex partner "bragged" that he had just had sex with her. She quickly ran out to another girlfriend's house and told her she had been raped. Soon, her mother was called and the police were notified. Two days later, when confronted with the contradictory stories of her companions, she admitted that she had not been raped. Her charge of rape was primarily motivated by an urgent desire to defuse what surely would be public information among her friends at school the next day, her promiscuity.
A 37-year-old woman reported having been raped 'by some nigger.' She gave conflicting reports of the incident on two occasions and, when confronted with these, she admitted that the entire story was a fabrication. She feared her boyfriend had given her 'some sexual disease,' and she wanted to be sent to the hospital to 'get checked out.' She wanted a respectable reason, i.e., as an innocent victim of rape, to explain the acquisition of her infection."

-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 86, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

These women made choices, bad choices, and did not want to suffer the consequences of their actions, so they lied. They were more willing to throw an innocent man in jail than to suffer the embarrassment of their choices.

So far, we've seen women who didn't want to suffer consequences of their actions, and others who lied out of fear. Other women want revenge:
"An 18-year-old woman was having sex with a boarder [works in exchange for meals] in her mother's house for a period of 3 months. When the mother learned of her behavior from other boarders, the mother ordered the man to leave. The complainant learned that her lover was packing and she went to his room and told him she would be ready to leave with him in an hour. He responded with 'who the hell wants you.' She briefly argued with him and then proceeded to the police station to report that he had raped her. She admitted the false charge during the polygraph examination.
A 17-year-old female came to headquarters and said that she had been raped by a house parent in the group home in which she lived. A female house parent accompanied her to the station and told the police she did not believe that a rape had occurred. The complainant failed the polygraph examination and then admitted that she liked the house parent, and when he refused her advances, she reported the rape to 'get even with him.'
A 16-year-old reported she was raped, and her boyfriend was charged. She later admitted that she was 'mad at him' because he was seeing another girl, and she 'wanted to get him into trouble.'"

-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 87, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

Some women are so petty and desperate for attention, they're willing to sacrifice a man's life so they can be in the spotlight:
"An unmarried female, age 17, abruptly left her girlfriends in the park one afternoon allegedly to go riding with a young man, a stranger she met earlier that morning who wanted her to smoke marijuana with him. Later that day, she told her friends she was raped by this man. Her friends reported the incident to the police, and the alleged victim went along with the rape charge because 'I didn't want them to know that I lied to them.' She explained that she manufactured this story because she wanted the attention.
An unmarried female, age 17, had been having violent quarrels with her mother who was critical of her laziness and style of life. She reported that she was raped so that her mother would 'get off my back and give me a little sympathy.'
An unmarried female, age 41, was in postdivorce counseling, and she wanted more attention and sympathy from her counselor because she 'liked him.' She fabricated a rape episode, and he took her to the police station and assisted her in making the charge. She could not back out since she would have to admit lying to him. She admitted the false allegation when she was offered to be polygraphed."

-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 87, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

Please keep in mind that just because 45 of the 109 (41%) of the women confessed to lying, it doesn't automatically make the other 64 (59%) allegations true. These were only the women who openly admitted it, and as we saw earlier, many of the other cases are listed as "unfounded," which means they have no physical evidence or witnesses that can corroborate the woman's story, so there may be a much higher rate of lying than we can see.

Kanin concludes the study with even more intriguing finds from two state universities in conjunction with local police:
"In 1988, we gained access to the police records of two large Midwestern state universities. With the assistance of the chief investigating officers for rape offenses, all forcible rape complaints during the past 3 years were examined... the false allegation cases were combined, n = 32. This represents exactly 50% of all forcible rape complaints reported on both campuses. [i.e. 32 out of 64 total from both colleges over three years were false allegations] Quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge... In both police agencies, the taking of the complaint and the follow-up investigation was the exclusive responsibility of a ranking female officer. Neither agency employed the polygraph and neither declared the complaint false without a recantation of the charge. Most striking is the patterning of the reasons for the false allegations given by the complainants, a patterning similar to that found for the nonstudent city complainants. Approximately one half (53%) of the false charges were verbalized as serving an alibi function. In every case, consensual sexual involvement led to problems whose solution seemed to be found in the filing of a rape charge. The complaints motivated by revenge, about 44%, were of the same seemingly trivial and spiteful nature as those encountered by the city police agency. Only one complainant fell into the attention/sympathy category. These unanticipated but supportive parallel findings on university populations suggest that the complications and conflicts of heterosexual involvements are independent of educational level. In fact, we found nothing substantially different here from those cases encountered by our city police agency."
-Eugene J. Kanin, "False Rape Allegations," Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, p. 90, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf]

So it was discovered in this study that it wasn't just university campuses, but in general, police agencies were found to have almost the exact same rate of false charges, and about the same types of reasons with almost the same percentages. It's also important to note that there was no pattern found for the educational level, meaning that no matter their station in society, and despite their varying lifestyles, women commonly lie, letting men unjustly suffer to save themselves the natural consequences of embarrassment and grief that their choices brought about.

In the 1980s, just a few years after the release of the Rape Culture documentary, investigators took note of a shocking rise in accusations from women against their husbands for child sexual abuse, which went from an average of 7% to an average of 30%. Anyone in their right mind would find it incredibly hard to believe that one out of three men are raping their children, and upon closer investigation, it was discovered that the sudden rise in rape allegations was not because men started raping children, but rather the problem was with wicked, selfish, lying women:
"There is disagreement over how many of these accusation are false, although most estimates range between 20% and 80%. Thoennes and her colleagues report that in 33% of the cases in their survey no abuse was believed to have occurred. Abuse was believed likely in 50%, and in 17% no determination could be reached (Thoennes & Pearson 1 988a, 1 988b; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990). [i.e. approximately 50% of the cases did not have sufficient evidence] However, the criterion for determination was the opinion of custody evaluators and child protection workers rather than the decision of the justice system. In over 500 cases of sexual abuse allegations where we have provided expert consultation over the past 6 years, 40% have been in divorce and custody disputes. [i.e. The woman knew she could win custody of the children if the court was convinced the man was a rapist.] Of the divorce and custody cases that have been adjudicated, in three-fourths [75%] there was no legal finding of abuse. That is, charges were dropped, never filed, the person was acquitted in criminal court, or there was a finding of no abuse in family or juvenile court."
-H. Wakefield & R. Underwager, "Sexual Abuse Allegations in Divorce and Custody Disputes," Behavioral Science and The Law, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 1991, p. 451-468, DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370090408, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [ipt-forensics.com/library/saadcd.htm]

The report also concluded that 79% of men (1983-1987) had successfully passed a polygraph test in denying sexual abuse in these cases, but, as we just read, the decisions were being made by social workers, rather than the justice system. Just on the observations of the social workers, without more proper investigations, they concluded that around 50% did not have the proper evidence needed to back up the woman's claim. When as many as 80% (possibly more) of child rape allegations may be false, this is certainly worth looking into, but as far as I know (as of 2016), it's been over 20 years since such investigative studies like this have been conducted, and that's mostly due to the barbaric howling of the femi-nazis intimidating cowardly men who lack the backbone to do what's right.

Women, and most especially feminists, know very well that a man's life can be destroyed by one accusation of rape, and that is precisely why most of those who lie go through with the unjust prosecution of innocent men. Female attorney Jonna Spilbor summed it up very well when she commented on a sexual assault case:
"Falsely reporting any crime is shameful. Falsely reporting a rape is especially heinous. The liar who files the false claim dishonors - and makes life all the more difficult for - the many true victims who file genuine rape claims because they have been terribly violated, and seek justice for it. At the same time, and perhaps even more seriously, the false report begins to destroy the reputation, and sometimes the life, of the accused from the very moment it is made - a fact of which many accusers are keenly aware."
-Jonna Spilbor, quoted by Brent E. Turvey, Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Academic Press, 2011, p. 396, ISBN: 9780080569352

All the time, you'll see reports from the mainstream media talking about how difficult false allegations make life for other women. The problem is that you almost never see anyone talk about how difficult this makes life for the falsely accused and men in general, and though Spilbor briefly makes mention of it (which I appreciate), she only addresses the woes of the average female citizen, but not the woes of the average male citizen when these liars unjustly prosecute innocent men.

Bruce Gross, the director of the University of South California's Institute of Psychiatry, Law, and Behavioral Science, points out the slowly growing number of innocent men who have been serving years of a prison sentence:
"There is no way of knowing the number of defendants who have been convicted of rape on the basis of a false allegation. One study found 28 cases in which the defendant had been convicted and served an average of 7 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence (Connors et al., 1996). Of note, all 28 cases involved sexual assault with the trials taking place in the mid- to late- 1980s when DNA was not routinely tested. According to the Innocence Project, since 2000 there have been 156 cases of post-conviction exonerations based on DNA testing, an untold number of which involved sex crimes (Innocence Project, 2008). The average time the wrongfully convicted person served prior to release was 12 years. Regardless of the exact number, processing those who have been falsely accused of rape is a clear waste of legal, judicial, and penal resources."
-Bruce Gross, "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice," Community of the Wrongly Accused, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [cotwa.info/p/false-rape-allegations-assault-on.html]

Don't misunderstand, he's not saying it's a waste to free the innocent men, but the woman is wasting resources. Our judicial system is not free; she should have to pay the state back money for the resources she cost the tax payers. These women are wasting our time and money on their personal vendettas, and destroying the lives of those around them through their selfishness and bigotry.

So these men's lives are destroyed completely by women who couldn't keep their mouths shut, and so what punishment befalls these women who lie? Gross continues:
"Essentially, there are no formal negative consequences for the person who files a false report of rape. Not only did the false allegation serve a purpose for the accusers, they actually never have to fully admit to themselves, their family, or their friends that the report was a lie. Although there are grounds for bringing legal action against the accuser, it is virtually never done. Even should a charge be filed, in most jurisdictions filing a false report is only a misdemeanor. When rape cases go to trial, alleged victims are protected by "rape shield statutes." In brief, these statutes are designed to prevent defense attorneys from using the accuser's sexual history "against" her. At the same time, these rape shield laws may suppress evidence related to the woman's history that is relevant to the issue before the court. In particular, they have been used to exclude prior false accusations of rape filed by the alleged victim. Although courts have ruled inconsistently on this issue, there is legal foundation for admitting prior false accusation into evidence in criminal proceedings (Epstein, 2005). In a step toward ensuring justice, perhaps when there is proof of prior false reports, they should be allowed in. Before this can happen, guidelines would need to be established regarding the definition of a "false rape accusation" and the criteria for proof of prior acts. Similarly, consideration should be given to making the filing of a false report of rape a felony, rather than a misdemeanor."
-Bruce Gross, "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice," Community of the Wrongly Accused, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [cotwa.info/p/false-rape-allegations-assault-on.html]

I firmly agree with this, that not only do we not have a clear legal definition of a "false rape allegation," due to the lack of concern for men's rights in this country, but the women, most especially the feminists in their quest for so-called "equality," need to suffer the consequences men suffer. The way to solve this problem is, in cases where a woman is proven to have lied about her rape allegation, for her to suffer the penalties (prison sentences and fines) that the man would have had to suffer if he had been convicted of the crime he did not commit.

Sadly, most researchers and reporters today won't touch this topic because they know it is easy for them to lose their jobs if they dare question feminism. (This is why some of this research is decades old.) I have also concluded this is why most of the churches, ministries, and pastors stay away from this topic as well; they know that such vile controversy is not good for their popularity, and likewise, their income, so they'll choose to appease the masses to fatten their wallets.
(Read "Is Tithe a Christian Requirement?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

According to the feminists, we live in a society that focuses only on men, and benefits only men, but isn't it strange that we see no mention of male rape? Up until 2013, the FBI definition of rape excluded men altogether, as they stated in their FAQ to various jurisdictions:
"Q: In 2012, the Department of Justice announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's (UCR) Summary Reporting System (Summary). How does the new definition differ from the old one?
A: The old definition was 'The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.' Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: 'Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.'"

-Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Change in the UCR Definition of Rape," Dec 11, 2014, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [ucr.fbi.gov/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions]

All we ever typically hear about through news, movies, books, and music is the forced violation of women in rape, but we almost never hear about men being raped. Isn't it odd, in a so-called "patriarchal society" feminists keep whining about, that men are being ignored and forgotten as victims of sexual violence? The FBI's former definition of rape was developed in 1927 while they were gathering statistics on rape data, and so for almost 90 years of rape statistics, men were excluded from those numbers.

The Alaska Victimization Survey parroted a CDC survey in which women were told that they have no responsibility for their actions when they're drunk:
"Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. This can include times when they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs or they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent. Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault. When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have had vaginal sex with you?"
-A. Rosay & D. Wood, "Alasak Victimization Survey," Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, retrieved Sept 6, 2016, [justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2010/1004.avs_2010/1004.06.avs.dhss2.pdf]

We've already covered the absurdity of women not being responsible for their actions when they choose to drink alcohol, but I want to focus on the fact that they specifically asked about "vaginal" sex. The document goes on to ask specifically if they had been raped by a man's "penis," and refer only to vaginal sex or anal or oral sex via the penis. The point I'm making here is that men are 100% excluded from consideration of being raped by the definitions used in this document.

Under the illusion of the feminist fantasy of a "patriarchal society," men being sexually assaulted by a woman is not considered to be rape, but we need to question why that is. The problem is that men think that during the process of being assaulted by a woman, he had an erection, so he thinks, "Since I had an erection, I must have wanted it," however, that is an error in reasoning.

"The belief that it is impossible for males to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by women is contradicted. Previous research indicating that male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states, including anger and terror, are corroborated."
-P.M. Sarrel & W.H. Masters, "Sexual Molestation of Men by Women," U.S. National Library of Medicine, April, 1982, PMID: 7125884, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7125884]

For example, you may not want to vomit, but if you touch the back of your throat, you can force involuntary vomiting, and this is because the Lord God designed our bodies to react in certain ways due to specific stimulation. If someone was to argue that a woman was not raped because she showed signs of arousal during the encounter, people would lose their minds in rage because they know that arousal is a natural, involuntary physiological response to stimuli, but that doesn't mean she wanted it. Both males and females can be aroused and even orgasm during rape encounters, and so the argument that males can't be raped because they got an erection is simply false. (It is because of involuntary arousal that rape can be so traumatic for the victim; linking a feeling of pleasure with the feelings of fear, anger, and terror.)

The sexual violence survey given by the CDC in 2010 decided to include men for the first time; the survey interviewed 7,421 men, and the results turned out that 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, 52.4% of those reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger. The survey went further and found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else.
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 1-2, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf])

There are countless rape abuse centers and rape victim organiziations that offer help and counseling to women who have been raped, but there are very few that offer help and counseling to men who have been raped. (What a strange patriarchy we have that doesn't care what happens to men; isn't that odd?) Many people forget about young men and boys, and according to the CDC survey, "More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger," and this is because many women who rape find it easier to do so on younger men who can't defend themselves or don't understand what's happening.
(See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report," p. 2, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf])

I've looked at news reports concerning molestation and rape cases by Catholic priests of young boys, a situation so common, most people have heard of it. In all the news reports I've seen, there are details describing the incidents, the rapist, and the court room trials, but one thing I've never seen in any of the reports I've looked at is relief, help, or counseling for the young boys; in fact, they're almost never mentioned, and this kind of ignoring male victims, especially in rape cases, has always been normal in the U.S., and helps to minimize and enable the rape of young men.

The above CDC report also specifically points out that they only surveyed domestic cases, and did NOT "capture populations living in institutions, (e.g. prisons, nursing homes, millitary bases, college dormitories) or those who may be living in shelters, or homeless," so even just considering prison rape, which is incredibly common in male prisons, how can we get an accurate number of comparison for male vs female rape? While feminists keep squawking in defiance of the facts, we'll never know, and they'll keep the public ignorant about such matters by falsely claiming they're fighting for "equality."

"Every comedian has a prison rape joke and prosecutions of sexual crimes against men are still rare. But gender norms are shaking loose in a way that allows men to identify themselves—if the survey is sensitive and specific enough—as vulnerable. A recent analysis of BJS data, for example, turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator. The final outrage... involves inmates, who aren't counted in the general statistics at all. In the last few years, the BJS did two studies in adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The surveys were excellent because they afforded lots of privacy and asked questions using very specific, informal, and graphic language. ('Did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a blow job?') Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse."
-Hanna Rosin, "When Men Are Raped: A New Study Reveals That Men Are Often the Victims of Sexual Assault, and Women Are Often the Perpetrators," Slate, Apr 29, 2014, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [http://slate.me/POCNPU]

Feminist intimidation has been the primary cause of the glossing over of these statistics, and why so many researchers refuse to investigate these numbers and do the surveys needed to find the truth. It is quite possible that, in the U.S., the number of male rapes could not only equal that of female rapes, but male rape numbers might be higher than that of female rapes, and this is primarily because most of the institutions the CDC mentioned, like military bases and prisons, and other factors like the homeless, actually are made up of mostly men, who have generally been ignored when it comes to rape and abuse statistics. (i.e. Men make up the grand majority of active duty military [86%], prisons [87%], and homeless [77%] in the U.S.)
(For military statistics, see Statistic Brain, "Women in the Military Statistics," retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [statisticbrain.com/women-in-the-military-statistics; For prison statistics, see Leonard A. Sipes, "Statistics on Women Offenders," corrections.com, Feb 6, 2012, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [corrections.com/news/article/30166-statistics-on-women-offenders]; For homeless statistics, see National Health Care for the Homeless Council, "Single Males: The Homeless Majority," Vol. 5, No. 3, June, 2001, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001HealingHands.pdf])

Why is it that our society mostly ignores prison rape? Because prisons are mostly made up of men. So much for that "male privilege" we keep hearing so much about.

The above author correctly points out that people make jokes about men getting raped in prisons all the time, so why is it that no one makes jokes about women getting raped? Why is it a tragedy when a woman gets raped, but it's "normal" when a man gets raped? Again, where is that "equality" feminists keep regurgitating to us?

The estimated number of domestic rape/sexual assault cases in the U.S. as of 2008 was 203,830, but obviously the numbers should be much less when factoring in "unfounded" vs "false" reports. The estimated number of rape/sexual assault cases among U.S. prison inmates alone was 209,400, which is mostly made up of men. Now, hopefully, readers can see why I suspect that rape among men in the U.S. is greater than rape among women in the U.S., but until researchers are free from threat of losing their jobs over the supposed "crime" of offending femi-nazis, we won't know for sure.
(For domestic statistics, see Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables," U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2011, NCJ 231173, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.pdf]; For prison inmate statistics, see David Kaiser & Lovisa Stannow, "The Shame of Our Prisons: New Evidence," The New York Review of Books, Oct 24, 2013, retrieved Sept 7, 2016, [nybooks.com/articles/2013/10/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence])

Though the Bible is very clear on the sin of sodomy and homosexuality (i.e. it is condemned), most people forget lesbians in these figures because they think it's not possible for women to rape. This is not true; on the contrary, lesbians rape other lesbians quite frequently, as American journalist Philip Cook and criminal justice professor Tammy Hodo point out:
"Researcher Claire Renzetti has been a pioneer in examining abuse of all types in lesbian relationships. Forty-eight percent of the respondents in a survey she helped conduct said they had experienced sexual abuse in their relationships and had experienced forced sex, with 16 percent saying it was forced upon them frequently. Four percent of the respondents had suffered a gun or knife being inserted in their vagina. Does this mean that lesbians are more likely to rape other lesbians than it is for a woman to rape a man? Possibly."
-Philip W. Cook & Tammy L. Hodo, When Women Sexually Abuse Men: The Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment, and Sexual Assault, ABC-CLIO, 2013, p. 14, ISBN: 9780313397301

We ought to take a moment to consider that the feminist movement attracts and harbors huge numbers of lesbians, and I would say a strong percentage of the those in the feminist movement are lesbians, or become lesbians after joining the organizations. With the number of woman-on-woman rapes in these surveys, we have to wonder how much rape is going on within the feminist movement itself, without anyone questioning it.

Such truths are despised, meaning that feminists don't want to hear about it. It not only disproves feminist arguments, but more importantly, it is supporting evidence that God's Word is true when He tells us about such people:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature [i.e. lesbians]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind [i.e. sinful mind], to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:26-32

These verses are directed at both men and women, not just one or the other, and people would do well to remember that the Lord God has condemned all of us in His Word. However, feminists lead people to believe the only evil in this world is men, like when feminist Marilyn French wrote in her novel The Women's Room in 1977, which sold 20 million copies and was translated into 20 languages:
"Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."
-Marilyn French, The Women's Room, (Chpt 5, 1977), Simon and Schuster, 2011, ISBN: 9781451629170

However, in this video, Warren Farrell describes a survey he was hired to conduct for Glamour Magazines back in the late 1970s, and how when they discovered the truth about what men really thought, they refused to publish it:
FARRELL: "I've never spoken about this before, but when I did an article once for Glamour Magazine, they asked me to find out, to report on what guys most wanted from women when they were sexual with them, and they were expecting all these sort of tricky sexual positions and orgasms or other things along those lines that we can all image. I interviewed guy after guy, and these were guys that were not sort of feminist males. These were guys from lots of different stripes in life. They had lots of different desires, but they had only one thing in common, and one thing that was most frequently mentioned. Both what they had in common, and what was most frequently mentioned, was that they wanted the woman to be happy, excited, and gratified. So I submitted this and explained the quotes and things like that, and Glamour said, 'We can't publish this.'"
INTERVIEWER: "Are you kidding me?"
FARRELL: "I am not kidding you. They would not publish it; that was not the answer they wanted."
INTERVIEWER: "When was this?"
FARRELL: "This was back in--about the 70s probably, late 70s."
INTERVIEWER: "Wow. When I'm hearing you tell this, I'm thinking, 'Geez, that should be a really important article.'"
FARRELL: "They [women] would love that. You would think that they would love that, and this is not--Glamour Magazine is not a feminist publication."
INTERVIEWER: "How do you explain their rejections of this article?"
FARRELL: "I feel that their rejection was basically, 'This is not what our managing editors feel will sell.' Women don't really want to hear that this is a very peaceful type of thing... Women want to hear more like, men want a blowjob, men want to have it be over quickly."
INTERVIEWER: "Is it fair to say that what you found doesn't fit the narrative [a written or spoken account of events] that's being promoted through the media the last 30 or 40 years?"
FARRELL: "Yeah, what I found does not fit the narrative, and doesn't fit the feminist narrative at all..."
INTERVIEWER: "I think those results still apply today."
FARRELL: "I've started 300 men's groups, I've started some 250 women's groups, all around the country. In men's group after men's group after men's group... and this is confidential groups where people open up and share their heart and know that it will not get outside of the group, and that's the big vow, and I've never heard a man intimate that he really wants to rape a woman... never have I had a guy suggest that he wanted to do something in sex that made the woman unhappy... or that the woman didn't want."

Women don't want to hear that the "female oppression" that they've been educated to believe doesn't actually exist because that indicates that they are not victims. Victim status implies a right to compensation, attention, and sympathy, and women really like those things. When they find out that men have been working hard for them, that men have been the victims and he deserves to be honored and reverenced in the position of husband and father, they would then have to confess personal responsibility, and that's abhorrent to a feminist.

Speaking of free compensation for "victimhood" status...



 

In a public address, Barack Obama said:
"Over the course of her career, a working woman with a college degree will earn on average hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a man who does the same work. Now, that's wrong... I want every child to grow up knowing that a woman's hard work is valued and rewarded just as much as any man's."
-Barack Obama, "Obama: 'It's Time' to Close Gender Wage Gap," Associated Press, June 10, 2013, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA]

Everyday Feminism Magazine tells women what most of you in American (and some other countries around the world) have heard many times before, that women only make about 77 cents to every dollar a man earns, and they refer to this as "the wage gap." This is absolute propaganda, and we're going to unravel this brainwashed lie to show the problem with their arguments and statistics.
(See Carmen Rios, "Here's What That '78 Cents to a Man's Dollar' Wage Gap Statistic Really Means," Everyday Feminism, July 12, 2015, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-78-cents-wage-gap-means])

The author (of the article I just referenced to) refers readers to the National Committee on Pay Equity, which displayed a chart (as of Sept of 2016 when I looked at it) of average salary earnings by men and women that has been reported by the Census Bureau from 1960 to 2015. It showed a progression of women in the 1960s making 60 cents on the dollar, up to almost 80 cents on the dollar on average in 2015. The problem is that this chart considers no other variables other than direct average salary earnings, but as we've already seen, feminists ignoring thorough research and statistical analysis is nothing new.
(See National Committee on Pay Equity, "The Wage Gap Over Time: In Real Dollars, Women See a Continuing Gap," retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [pay-equity.org/info-time.html])

The original statistic that was quoted for this "77 cents on the dollar" gap was the U.S. Current Population Survey Labor Force Statistics from 2009, which was republished in the Institute for Women's Policy Research publication in Sept of 2010. It specifically states that men earn an average of $47,127, while women only earn an average of $36,278, which comes out to a difference of 23%.
(See Institute for Women's Policy Research, "The Gender Wage Gap: 2009," #C350, September, 2010, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-2009])

The only thing this survey did was take the average earnings of all men and the average earnings of all women, and compare the two. There was NO study nor analysis to go along with the stats that would compare other possible variables, like hours worked, the type of work being done, vacation days, sick days, maternity leave, and numerous other factors that could contribute to the variation between the totals.

To help understand this problem, let's look at work statistics by age according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics published in July of 2016, in which they reported that women between the ages of 16-24 averaged weekly earnings of $492, whereas women 45-54 had weekly earnings of $829. If feminists were to stay consistent in their arguments, they would have to say this is pure "ageism" bias against teenage workers, and then fight for teenagers' right to earn as much as a 54-year old. This is clearly absurd because we all know the average earnings for an older person is because they have more work experience and dedication (among other factors), and they are naturally worth paying more for the work they perform, but this logical approach is abandoned when it comes to feminism.
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers Second Quarter 2016," U.S. Department of Labor, July 19, 2016, USDL-16-1492, p. 1, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf])

Another interesting point to consider is that the so-called "wage gap" almost disappears when we compare marital status (i.e. whether or not the man or woman has a spouse):
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings by sex, marital status, and presence and age of own children under 18 in 2012," United States Department of Labor, Dec 3, 2013, retrieved Sept 29, 2016, [bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20131203.htm])

The BLS also found that in 2010, more women worked when they were never married, divorced, separated, or widowed, than they did if they were married with children. This simply indicates that women, when they get married and have children, make different life choices than men do, which is why men earn more.
(See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Women in the Labor Force: A Databook," U.S. Department of Labor, December, 2011, p. 1, retrieved Oct 14, 2016, [bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf])

So what specifically causes married men to earn more than non-married men? The fact is that women don't like to live in a cardboard box and prefer to have nice things like a home, a car, kitchen appliances, furniture, and other things that will help her prepare to bring children into the world, and a man feels a desire as a dutiful, loving husband to do whatever he can to give his wife opportunity to achieve those goals, so typically, he works and she cares for the home. Someone has to be at home if the home is to be cared for, and in most cases, the woman is given the liberty and privilege to stay home.

What's shocking to most U.S. citizens in their ignorance is that about 25 years ago, statistics showed that never-married women earned MORE than never-married men. The U.S. Bureau of the Census records showed the exact median earnings for women were $46,896, and men were $39,996, but Warren Farrell, ex-feminist and former board of director for the National Organization of Women wrote:
"There was no category in which the never married men earned equally to the never married women... I began investigating this in 1990. The gap was about the same then--[never-married] women earned 116% of what their [never-married] male counterparts earned..."
-Warren Farrell, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap--and what Women Can Do About It, AMACOM, 2005, p. 238, ISBN: 9780814428566

To get into more details, let's look at total hours worked because men, in general, work more full-time and over-time jobs than women, and women, in general, work more part-time jobs than men. According to an Indiana University Department of Sociology study, at least 10% of the supposed 23% "wage gap" is because men work over-time (i.e. 50+ hours/week) two and half times more often than women:
"Despite rapid changes in women's educational attainment and continuous labor force experience, convergence in the gender gap in wages slowed in the 1990s and stalled in the 2000s. Using CPS data from 1979 to 2009, we show that convergence in the gender gap in hourly pay over these three decades was attenuated by the increasing prevalence of 'overwork' (defined as working 50 or more hours per week) and the rising hourly wage returns to overwork. Because a greater proportion of men engage in overwork, these changes raised men's wages relative to women's and exacerbated the gender wage gap by an estimated 10 percent of the total wage gap."
-Y. Cha & K.A. Weeden, "Overwork and the Slow Convergence in the Gender Gap in Wages," Indiana University, Feb 28, 2014, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [mypage.iu.edu/~cha5/Youngjoo_Cha_files/Cha_weeden.pdf]

To help us understand this point (and the problem with the "wage gap" propaganda), let's make it simple by comparing a married husband and wife who both work for the same company, both make $10 per hour, and both work 40 hours per week, for a total of $400 in weekly earnings. The company needs extra help because a key employee quit, and offers ten hours of overtime to the couple. The woman elects to work at home to take extra time to finish chores that need to be done at the house, and the man stays on to work the extra ten hours, so at the end of the week, his weekly earnings come out $500 and hers comes out to $400, a 20% difference. (And that's not including bonus pay for overtime.)

Can you see the problem now? There is no "wage gap" where the woman makes less than the man; she's making exactly the same amount of money, but the man puts in more work hours. These factors do not get taken into consideration in these statistics because no studies and surveys are being conducted to determine the reasons for the variables.

As I stated earlier, women, in general, work more part-time than full-time. This is not because they don't have access to full-time work, but rather it's because men and women are not the same, and women usually make different life choices than men:
"Part-time employment opportunities have been depicted as a beneficial option for women — offering them entry level access to the labor market while allowing them the flexibility to fulfill their roles in the home as wives and mothers. It is assumed that workers in this type of employment experience choice and autonomy [freedom and independence]: one personnel study concludes that, '...making a choice about part-time employment may contribute to the quality and dignity of working life, offering workers more control over their working time and the ability to accommodate personal and family needs as well as work needs. They permit workers to be treated as responsible adults, and they may increase job satisfaction.'"
-Vicki Smith, "The Circular Trap: Women and Part-Time Work," Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Mar 3, 2016, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [berkeleyjournal.org/2016/03/from-the-archives-the-circular-trap-women-and-part-time-work]; See also Stanley D. Nollen & Virginia H. Martin, "Alternative Work Schedules," American Management Association, 1978, ISBN: 9780814431320

In case you may not have fully understood what was said, it is ASSUMED that a full-time career gives women freedom and choice, but the fact is that, if women choose to work, part-time work is what most women feel gives them freedom and choice. This is why women more often seek part-time employment, because a career doesn't fulfill their basic God-given desires; not that they don't have a desire to work, but the work that is most fulfilling for them is work within the home and family.

In fact, women have been incentivized for working part-time instead of full-time because women (on average) actually make more in part-time jobs than men do:
"Women consistently earn more than men in part-time jobs, which women are also more likely to have. Female part-time workers earned $10 more in median weekly salaries than their male counterparts did in 2012, according to a new study from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS defines part-time work as less than 35 hours per week spent on a sole or principal job."
-Alison Griswold, "This Is The One Area Where Women Earn More Than Men," Business Insider, Nov 7, 2013, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [businessinsider.com/women-consistently-earn-more-than-men-in-part-time-jobs-2013-11]

This means there's a "wage gap" that's biased against men in part-time jobs, so why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why aren't feminists screaming out in protest that they make more money than men in part-time work, and demanding equal pay for men? Sarcastically speaking, God forbid that I, a lowly man, should call out the hypocrisy of feminists.

I want readers to understand that there is a big difference between equality in opportunity, and equality in RESULTS. I once listened to a feminist argue that women make up 50% of the population, but only 25% of seats in Congress, but the problem was that she was not considering that women typically do not choose to go into political fields as much as men. In short, many feminists are completely blinded that they are actually angry that more women are not choosing the particular fields of work and making the particular life choices that feminists want them to make, which is pressuring women to give up their liberty to make their own choices, and instead pander to the whims of feminists.

Praise God For Great Moms

Please don't misunderstand, this isn't some rebuke on mothers, as feminists typically do when they condemn stay-at-home moms. On the contrary, I give praise to the Lord God that some of you women have chosen to be responsible and dedicated mothers, who don't jump into full-time employment, because you can't be a great business woman and a great mother at the same time. (There simply isn't enough time in the day!)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics published the following statistics for 2015:
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey," United States Department of Labor, 2015, retrieved Oct 4, 2016, [bls.gov/cps/cpsaat22.htm])

Feminists lie to women and tell them they can have it all, but you can't be a good mother as a full-time career woman because in order to be a good mother, you have to be present with your children. It's ludicrous that I have to say this, but in effort to unbrainwash women in our society it's important to note: The fact is that you cannot be a good mother to your children if you aren't with them.

Women: Despite what you're told by the media, you can't do it all!

The same could be said for a full-time position, for example, if a woman is a manager of a restaurant, she cannot be a good manager if she's not there. So women have to choose: Either you be a good mom, or you be a good manager, but you can't have both, and I praise God for the women who choose to do what God designed them to do, which is to be the caretaker of the home and family.

Still, feminists howl about their disadvantage in the work place, claiming all the high-paying jobs are taken by men. Men are dominating a lot of the higher-paying careers, but that's because men more often choose those higher-paying careers than women do, because again, women typically make different life choices than men, and men are generally more willing to suffer high-stress employment to provide for his family.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics employment is often called STEM jobs, and it is claimed that these jobs are biased in favor of men. Men more often choose to go into STEM careers, and less women seem to want those jobs, however, recent studies have shown us it has nothing to do with women not being allowed into those fields:
"The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers."
-Wendy M. Williams & Stephen J. Ceci, "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Vol. 112, No. 17, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112, retrieved Sept 14, 2016, [pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract]

Once again, the feminists are wrong because women are actually afforded MUCH greater opportunities to be hired into prestigious fields of work in STEM jobs than are men, but fewer women are choosing a career in those higher-paying fields. Both men and women who looked over the test applications choose women over men more than 65% of the time. It's fascinating that mothers who took leave for their children (i.e. meaning they actually love and care for their families and want to be a good mothers) were selected more often by male employers, but females more often selected women who left their husbands, and also denied a job to those men who were dedicated husbands and fathers, showing an extreme bias against men, which is what we call a "matriarchy," not a patriarchy.

So another reason for the supposed "wage gap" is that men are choosing careers in higher-paying work, whereas women are not. The bottom line is if feminists want to complain that the higher paying jobs are all dominated by men, then I say to them: choose a different career path into high-paying STEM jobs, and then you won't have a need to complain because they're hiring women 2:1 over men. (i.e. FEMALE privilege)

The following are statistics published by the Council of Graduate Schools, and they showed that women are actually dominating over men in earning degrees from accredited colleges:
"Women earned about two-thirds of the graduate certificates, 60% of the master's degrees, and 52% of the doctorates awarded in 2011-12. Academic year 2011-12 marked the fourth consecutive year in which women earned the majority of the degrees awarded at the doctoral level."
-L.M. Gonzales & J.R. Allum, "Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2002 to 2012," Council of Graduate Schools, September, 2013, retrieved Sept 23, 2016, [cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GEDReport_2012.pdf]

Women are currently earning most of the degrees, yet they overall earn less money because they make different life and career choices, not because they're "paid less than a man." I've never had a job in which I've talked with my co-workers and a woman made less than me in the same level of position; I have, however, found some women who made more than I did in the same position, and it left me wondering why I never received my super-secret "male privilege" card that would get me special opportunities and benefits.

Research has shown that, on average, STEM jobs pay about 24% more than non-STEM jobs:
"The DOE report looked at four years of data on college graduates and found that STEM majors — science, technology, engineering, and math — on average earn $65,000, while non-STEM majors earned about $15,500 less. STEM majors were also more likely to be employed and hold only one full-time job, rather than a part-time job or multiple jobs."
-Peter Jacobs, "Science And Math Majors Earn The Most Money After Graduation," Business Insider, July 9, 2014, retrieved Oct 4, 2016, [businessinsider.com/stem-majors-earn-a-lot-more-money-after-graduation-2014-7]

What an amazing coincidence that 23% wage gap feminists whine about is almost exactly the difference in pay between STEM and non-STEM jobs. Obviously, this is not coincidence, but it's still only one of the major contributing factors to explain the difference between the average salaries of men and women. Notice also that STEM jobs require more full-time work, which women generally tend not to prefer.

Please take note in the above chart that the highest-paying degrees (i.e. as of 2016, math, engineering, computer science, physics, and business) are dominated by men. As I stated earlier, this is not because there's a bias in colleges that prevents women from getting a degree in these fields; it's because most women don't want to take those kinds of jobs. Women more often prefer jobs with people relation and interaction, which generally pay less, and they also prefer more comfortable settings and less mental/physical stress conditions that would be required to perform day-to-day tasks, which is why jobs like construction workers and garbage collectors are dominated by men.

Garbage collecting is a good example to help dispel feminist propaganda because the average salary of a garbage collector in 2014 was $33,660, and depending on the city, some garbage collectors made close to $60,000 a year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates a rise of 7 percent of available jobs for this industry over the next 8 years (from 2016-2024), which means there's incredible opportunity for women to become garbage collectors and get a piece of that man-dominated pie.
(See U.S. News & World Report, "Garbage Collector: Overview," retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/garbage-collector])

Yet, some strange mysterious force seems to keep women from applying to be garbage collectors--whatever could it be that keeps most women from taking on this high-paying career? New York City has 7,000 garbage collectors, and only 200 (less than 3%) of them are women. Manhattan has 426 sewage workers, and only 5 (1%) of them are women. I realize this might be a stereotype, but could it possibly be that almost all women, as far as I've ever known them, hate being dirty and smelly, and so they don't want jobs in which they will be dirty and smelly 90% of the time?
(See Kathleen Horan, "City Honors Female Garbage Collectors," WYNC, Mar 29, 2008, retrieved Sept 27, 2016 [wnyc.org/story/77923-city-honors-female-garbage-collectors]; See also Alison Gendar, "Agency 'a man's world': Women sewer workers sue DEP over unfair treatment," Daily News, Nov 6, 2009, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [http://nydn.us/2d7ESEw])

The fact is that most people have no desire to work in smelly and dirty garbage and sewage, but everyone has a need to dispose of their garbage and sewage. Since this is a need that's in high demand, but few people want the job, we have to pay those people more money to make the job desirable, otherwise, no one will do it. Thus, men more often take higher-paying jobs than women do simply because men are generally more willing to sacrifice the pleasure of a fulfilling career in order to make more money, and often, it's for the benefit of the women and children in their lives.

It seems that feminists want "equality" when it comes to the nice, comfortable jobs, but don't want so much equality when it comes to the smelly, dirty, disgusting, and physically taxing jobs, which is fine; I have no problem with women not wanting to do tough work, I just have a problem with spoiled brats (i.e. feminists) whining about their imagined woes. Concerning the absurdly foolish statements of feminists I quoted at the beginning of this article, who want the world to be rid of 90% or more of men, they quickly forget how many comforts they enjoy at the hands of men behind the scenes who clean up their trash and sewage, pave their smooth roads, and drill out the oil for their vehicles, all of which operate on machinery also invented and designed by men who primarily take jobs in engineering.

Women also tend to avoid jobs that have the highest risk of injury and death. In 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a total of 4,679 work-related deaths, and of those, 4,320 (92%) were male, and 359 (8%) were female.
(See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Fatal occupational injuries by selected worker characteristics and selected event or exposure, 2014," United States Department of Labor, retrieved Sept 27, 2016, [bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm])

We have many women who love to have electricity in their homes, but don't want to be coal miners. We have many women who love to eat seafood, but don't want to be fisherman. We have many women who love to have the radio, but don't want to climb the towers and do repairs. We have many women who love to have clean windows in their comfortable offices, but don't want to climb the outside of a high-rise building to wash them. Based on my own observations in my life, I have found that most Americans quickly forget and remain blissfully ignorant of the men who work tough jobs so they can have electricity, plumbing, and other convenient essentials, but especially women, because most American women don't even know what it takes to provide light and clean water because they've never had to suffer without it thanks to the men behind the scenes upkeeping it constantly.

The following chart shows women in professional occupation for 2014, and you can see that women do not often take careers that put their lives or well-being at risk. There are some safer jobs that men still have more jobs in, like the arts, but included in the arts are things like graphic design that involve more math-related skills, which women typically choose not to study in college.
(See Department for Professional Employees [AFL-CIO], "Women in the Professional Workforce," February 2015, retrieved Oct 25, 2016, [dpeaflcio.org/professionals/professionals-in-the-workplace/women-in-the-professional-and-technical-labor-force])

The far left can also be considered lower risk and lower stress depending on the job. Some may consider nursing work higher stress and higher technical knowledge that pays well, and they are for the most part, but the majority of healthcare workers are not nurses working in hospitals as some people might imagine; most are CNAs to help with menial tasks like cleaning or moving patients in nursing homes. (e.g. One certified nurse will oversee 10-20 CNAs in a ward.)

Author, radio host, and country singer, Jim Goad refers to a "glass coffin," which is a much better metaphor to contrast the feminist propaganda of a "glass ceiling," in which they claim women can see the top but never reach it. In fact, the "glass coffin" is that women can see the death happening to men, but can safely walk across their dead bodies:
"The sad, inequitable truth is that when it comes to jobs that actually kill you—noble working-class professions such as logging, fishing, roofing, mining, truck driving, and toiling away on electrical power lines—men unfairly comprise more than 90% of the workers in each profession. Conversely, women dominate some of the safest jobs—things such as administrative support, education, and library work—by a factor of around three to one. It is shameful and horrifying and totally problematic and completely unacceptable that gender activists have failed to address this gaping inequality. It's almost as if the patriarchy intentionally denies women the natural privilege of dying while working... Sure, we often hear about the impermeable 'glass ceiling' that prevents women from becoming CEOs and billionaires and Supreme Court justices and running for president, but our male-dominated society turns a deaf ear to women's righteous quest for equality when it comes to sharing the right to suffocate under a ten-ton tsunami of human waste while working in a sewer because that's supposedly a 'man's' job... Equality is for everyone, and that includes the right to get squashed like a bug by heavy machinery. Why aren't women afforded the right to be struck dead by falling objects? Didn't Susan B. Anthony struggle nobly to make it possible for the sisterhood to drown overboard on Alaskan crabbing expeditions? Women have the same right that men do to be crushed to death in a coal-mining explosion. They deserve the freedom and dignity to be pulverized into tomato paste when their semi truck jackknifes around a mountain curve."
-Jim Goad, "Smashing Through the Glass Coffin," Taki's Magazine, Jan 11, 2016, retrieved Oct 25, 2016, [takimag.com/article/smashing_through_the_glass_coffin_jim_goad/print#axzz4O7ZQJVcs]

The fact is that the higher the risk and higher demand of a job, the more it pays, which is why a high-rise construction worker will earn a greater salary than a secretary in most cases. Unless a woman has to balance herself on a tight rope 300 feet in the air to get to the office, her job is considered safe and low risk, and though it is important work in the context of the office setting, it is not valued as much financially because more people would be willing to work in comfort as a secretary than to take the risk, physical strain, and stress of a construction worker.

However, what feminists are attempting to do through the "wage gap" argument is pass legislation that will (via a communist government) force employers to pay secretaries the same as the high-rise construction workers. A long time ago, feminists used to walk around with their picket signs that read "EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK," but now they walk around with signs that simply say "EQUAL PAY," which hopefully should now demonstrate to readers the true deception behind their movement because it means that feminists don't want to do the same amount of high-risk and high-demand work, they just want the same amount of pay without the responsibility.


James Madison, the 4th president of the United States, had a large role in drafting the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he stated very clearly in The Federalist Papers that when the mob rule (i.e. yowling feminists) demands equality in "their possession, their opinions, and their passions," then the entire structure of our nation will be destroyed. I discuss this issue in greater detail in our article, "Should Christians Vote?" and I would encourage readers to visit that page if you want an in-depth study on that subject.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Again, the true definition of feminism:
The feminist movement is an outcry of privileged women who don't want to suffer consequences for their choices.

So again, this concept is very simple: The reason women generally make less is because they make different life choices, and the life choices women make will determine the career choices women make. For example, a man can take on a garbage collector job and earn a salary of $40,000 a year, and a woman can also take on a garbage collector job, but the employer does NOT say, "Oh, I see you're a female, so we're going to pay you $30,000 a year;" in the U.S., that almost never happens. (i.e. The only time that may happen is if men and women are hired for a job that requires a lot of physical lifting, women obviously can't do as much as men, so men would be paid more.)

The abillity to earn more is driven by a number of factors, some of those we've already listed, but to give an example, I used to work a job in which we would move someone's belongings. We went to a home, and they paid us to pack up and move everything in their house (dishes, clothes, furniture, etc). I don't have as much muscle as the guys I was hired to work with, which means I did not have the same physical strength, and because of that, I did not make as much on the hour as they did.

So because I didn't make as much on the hour as the other employees, does that mean I was discriminated against? No. Should I have sat around whining to the government that I didn't get paid as much? No. I didn't make as much because I didn't do the same amount of work as the other employees, which means I got paid what I was worth based on the type and amount of work I performed, and the same goes for women.

Concerning various industries that take on employees, most women won't (and in some cases can't) do the same type of work men do, and most women choose not to do as much work as a man does. This can also be seen in women who own their own business:
"While female business owners' salaries have risen in the past year to $63,000, the average male business owner earns $71,400 annually... The lower salary for the average woman entrepreneur is likely related to her company's overall revenue, rather than a decision to keep profits in the company or pay employees first."
-Colleen DeBaise, "How Much Do Women Business Owners Make?" The Story Exchange, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [thestoryexchange.org/women-business-owners]

Other studies have found larger gaps between male and female business owners:
"Payscale's report indicated that men who own small businesses earn a salary that ranges from $42,575 to $96,111. Women, on the other hand, only earn $31,380 to $71,140 every year."
-K.J. Henderson, "The Average Income of Small Business Owners," Chron, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [smallbusiness.chron.com/average-income-small-business-owners-5189.html]

The first study I quoted was based on an American Express survey, and these numbers come from overall revenue, not internal decision-making (e.g. paying employees more, saving capital for investments, etc), and the reasons for this "income gap" between male and female business owners has nothing to do with discrimination against women because most consumers don't even know who owns and operates the business at which they shop. She's her own boss, so her own work determines how much money she makes, and that's precisely what the American Express study discovered in their survey:
"In the corporate world, women often find it difficult to balance work and life; entrepreneurship offers more flexibility, but isn't a complete solution, according to the AmEx study. Women entrepreneurs say they are less satisfied with the amount of leisure time in their lives (63% vs. 70% of men) and are more likely to say they find it stressful balancing their personal life and their business (63%, vs. 57% of men)."
-Colleen DeBaise, "How Much Do Women Business Owners Make?" retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [thestoryexchange.org/women-business-owners]

Women have a greater desire than men for developing personal relationships with friends and family, which means most women do not desire to make money as much as they desire to spend time in the home and with their loved ones. For example, if she wants to have children, it is nearly impossible to be a good mother that engages and educates her children, AND run a full-time business simultaneously. (i.e. Again, you must choose to either be a successful mother, or a successful business woman, but you can't be both.)

Yet, the White House helps feminists push propaganda by publishing photos like this:
(See Valerie Jarrett, "Email from Valerie Jarrett on Equal Pay Day, " The White House, April 12, 2016, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/04/12/email-valerie-jarrett-equal-pay-day])

I would challenge readers to go online and look up similar propaganda images, and you'll notice that, in most instances, they always show a woman on the phone, sitting at a comfortable desk, writing or typing. They almost never show these women doing incredibly risky, dirty, or strenuous labor. Why not? Because the entire purpose of this propaganda is to get people to think the "wage gap" is because a female taking phone calls makes 23% less than a male taking phone calls, and they don't want people to start thinking the difference in pay has to do with women not wanting to do the same work as men in various high-risk, high-demand jobs.

Statistics in the U.S. have shown that 91% of construction workers are male. Statistics in the U.K. have shown that 99% of construction workers are male. The surveys indicate that out of the small percentage of women in construction, many of them are working in offices, and the photos I saw on these websites never showed women doing any hard or dirty labor; it only showed women working with blueprints or standing around holding traffic signs, having nice clean shirts on with their pristine hair. See for yourself the next time you're driving through a construction zone; look for how many women you see, and if you see any, look for what type of job they're performing on the site--that will tell you everything you need to know about the illusionary "wage gap."
(For the U.S., see Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Women in Construction," United States Department of Labor, retrieved Oct 6, 2016, [osha.gov/doc/topics/women]; For the U.K., see Martin Williams, "Where are all the women? Why 99% of construction site workers are male," The Guardian, May 19, 2015, retrieved Oct 6, 2015, [theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/2015/may/19/where-are-all-the-women-why-99-of-construction-site-workers-are-male])

I found another online e-card with feminist propaganda, so I made a counter version to show readers the difference between the propaganda and reality. Again, people don't enjoy strenuous labor or dying very much, which is why a phone operator is paid less than a construction worker, and also why more men take construction jobs and women take phone operator jobs.

The following is a list of 17 questions based on what affects how much money a man or woman makes, and why men earn more. I would like the reader to consider everything we've learned so far, and consider the men and women that you've personally known in your life for each one. The answer to each of these questions will determine if you make more or less money at your job, and the more of them that require a "yes" answer, the more money you'll make:
  1. Does your occupation involve engineering, mathematics, or computer knowledge and skills? (e.g. STEM jobs versus non-STEM jobs)
  2. Does your occupation require you to take physical (and emotional) risk?
    (e.g. construction worker versus secretary)
  3. Does your occupation require you to take financial (and emotional) risk?
    (e.g. investment banker, stock trader, etc)
  4. Does your occupation require you work the worst hours?
    (e.g. third shift, rush hours, etc)
  5. Does your occupation expose you to harsh weather conditions?
    (e.g. wind, rain, snow, etc)
  6. Does your occupation require working more than 40 hours per week?
    (e.g. 50, 60, or more hours)
  7. Does your occupation prevent you from clocking out at the end of the day?
    (e.g. A lawyer has to take their work home, but a sales associate can forget their job when they go home.)
  8. Does your occupation require you to have years of experience?
    (e.g. office network operator vs cashier)
  9. Does your occupation require continual updating and repair?
    (e.g. computer technician versus English teacher)
  10. Does your occupation involve work that is not personally fulfilling?
    (e.g. journalism vs garbage collecting)
  11. Does your occupation require you to travel more than five days per month?
  12. Does your occupation require you to work in a city you do not want to live in?
  13. Do you have more than ten years of uninterrupted employment at your current occupation?
  14. Do you take five or less vacation days during the work year?
  15. Do you call in sick two or less days during the work year?
  16. Do you commute more than twenty-five miles round trip to get to work?
  17. Do you get paid commission?
The more of these you answer "yes" to, the more money you'll make at that job, however, if you ask these questions in the context of "what do women prefer," then the answer to each one is typically "No." Then it's no coincidence that men earn more than women because men more often work jobs that answer yes to these questions.

Here's an important question to consider: If women do the same work men do, but they do it 20-25% cheaper than men, then what company would be stupid enough to hire men at all? A free market society would naturally punish companies for discrimination against women because those companies that didn't discriminate would be making HUGE profits over the other companies.

If it's true women are being discriminated against, surely there are companies that have figured this out by now and only hire women to take advantage of their cheap labor. However, we don't find this in the U.S. because the entire "wage gap" argument is a hoax.

Another problem with the "wage gap" that most people don't consider is that this whole argument is really about over what is called "power." The term "power" in this context is really authority and control. Feminists believe that it is men who have all the authority and control because they make more money, but I'd like to pose a scenario between two people and let you decide who has the power.

Person #1 works for a corporation that tells that person when to get up and when that person can go to bed. The schedule that person receives also dictates when they can eat, when they can take a break, and how much work they must get done.

Person #2 stays at home, allowing them to decide when to get up and when to go to bed. The person dictates when they can eat, when they can take a break, and how much work they must get done.

So who has the power, the authority and control, over their life, #1 or #2? Anyone would have to lie to themselves to say that person #1 has the power, and the only true way that a man, who more often becomes a corporate slave so the woman can stay at liberty in her home, maintains authority and control in his home is when his wife, in loving, dutiful, and Biblical manner, humbles and submits herself to his authority willingly, which brings us to the next section...



 

Sadly, many Christians have also been brainwashed into feminist philosophy, and to undo the damage, we need to go back into Genesis and get a firm foundation of where we came from, comparing it to what we see today. Though some readers may have seen these verses many times, I would ask that you read these verses again very slowly and consider the matter because there are many people out there that try to interpret these problems through the dangerous philosophy of Evolutionism, and that philosophy is shared by feminists as well. (i.e. You can't fight fire with fire.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
-Genesis 2:18-20

There are many people who say "helpmeet" as if it is one word, but it is not a single word, it's two words. Many Christians are unaware of why people have had so much difficulty understanding this phrase. It is phrased in the order of an adjective (help) with a noun (meet), but seems to be a noun of 'help' with the adjective description as 'meet', and yet, 'help' is typically used as a verb, and 'meet' is typically used as an adjective, which means these two words are used in a unique way in verse 18.

It might be easier to understand it if we turn it around and call it "meet help," not to alter the Word of God in any way, but a temporary exercise to help us understand it:

meet (adj): qualified to a use or purpose
help (n): one who gives assistance
(See 'help' & 'meet', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 7, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

So the phrase "help meet," which is directed at women specifically, would mean she is a person qualified for the express purpose of assisting a man. I don't care if some women don't like it; that's the express purpose her physical body was created for, and feminism's goal is to fight against the Christian God of the Bible because they hate and reject the role they were given by Him. Of course, inwardly, as many of you can probably tell by watching them, feminists are miserable inside, and many women have testified (as we'll see later) that they bought into the feminist lie in their 20s, but about 10 years later, they realized that everything they had worked so hard for had made them miserable because when the Lord God says that he created woman to be a help meet, it means that her inward desires will be to fulfill that role.

If women will focus themselves on Christ, and find a righteous man to be a help meet to him, they will be much happier and more content.

Next, it's important to look at the fall of mankind to get a better idea of why we are the way we are. The serpent (Satan) deceived the woman (Eve) and got her to eat fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden that God had expressly commanded them not to eat.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
-Genesis 3:6

Notice that she was not being a help meet at this point, but she was leading the two of them into eating the fruit. Though some people think Adam was somewhere else at the time, it doesn't make Biblical sense because Adam was not deceived (as we'll see in a moment); Adam was standing right next to her, she gave him to eat the forbidden fruit, and he ate it anyway, but why?

Many people don't understand that the New Testament explains more details. Within the church specifically, women are not permitted to be leading authorities or teachers (i.e. women can teach in other areas, just not in authority over the church), and the reason for this goes back to the event at the tree of knowledge:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
-1 Timothy 2:12-14

So Eve was deceived by the serpent, which means she didn't have full understanding of what she was doing, but also consider that Adam didn't step up and tell her "No," to stop her from what she was doing. It's interesting to note that, still today, many men have a hard time stepping up, putting their foot down, and telling their wives "No," just as many wives have a hard time accepting "No" from their husbands.

Adam had full knowledge of what he was doing; he wasn't deceived like Eve was, which means he understood the punishment he would have to suffer for eating it. So why did he do it? My understanding of this is taken from the verses that refer to the marriage supper of Christ (Rev 19:9), which shows the Church to Christ as a bride to a bridegroom, or a wife to a husband:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
-Ephesians 5:22-25

It is my belief that Adam took the fruit and ate it in order to save his wife, so he would not be separated from her. He had full knowledge of his disobedience, and knew God would punish him for doing so, but his desire to be with his wife drove Adam (man) to give his life up for her.

No matter what society they live in, it is generally automatically assumed that men will be the provider for a family. As we can see from the stats listed in the previous sections of this article, men more often take higher-risk, higher-stress, and more time-consuming work in order to provide for the family, and the Bible tells men that's the way it ought to be, that he would be willing to give his life for his wife, either through physical protection from danger that may end in his immediate death, or giving his life in the manner of working hard to provide.

This is also reflected in God's punishment to Adam and Eve for their transgression:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
-Genesis 3:16-17

There's a lot to discuss here, but first, it is very difficult to bring down a strong, hard-working man that is grounded on good Biblical principles, and it is even more difficult to deceive a man who studies the Word of God to rightly divide the truth. Men are the providers, protectors, and authorities of the household, and not only was woman commanded to be subject to him, the ground was cursed so that men would have to work hard to earn a living:

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-Genesis 3:18-19

God told men then they would work until they died, and so most of them do exactly that, but in exchange for the benefits she would receive from this work, the wife is supposed to be in submission to him, and in our modern American society, more and more women are rejecting God's commandment. In addition to this, the woman is the weaker vessel:

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
-1 Peter 3:7

Since the man is the protector, he's the first line of the defense for his house, but if the woman can be deceived, she can attack and destroy the household from within, which is much more effective and less work for the enemy. This was very difficult to do until the invention of the television. From the beginning, women have been more susceptible to deception than men, and this is primarily due to their nurturing and caring nature that God programmed them with, so the Lord God decreed that women's husbands should rule over them, for their own good.

One of the major reasons feminism has grown by leaps and bounds over the past century is that wives have refused to give their husbands authority. If Eve had listened to the serpent, then turned to Adam as the authority over her and said, "What do you think we should do," we might not be in this position today.

The feminists are working very hard right now to destroy the role of the wife and mother in the home, and as a result, the role of men is being destroyed. When men learn how hard they actually have it in this society, as I statistically demonstrated earlier, and that they've been lied to about "male privilege" that doesn't exist, they tend to get angry, but whereas many feminists and other women have wanted to take more and more from men, the men I've talked to and listened to, despite their anger, don't want to take anything away from women because they want to fulfill their role as a provider and protector.

With some exceptions, most men want women to have privilege. Men want women to get help and assistance as they need, and they don't want to see women suffer. The sad part is that men's organizations that are growing in number are starting to get men to speak up about their own wants and desires, encouraging them to do what they want to do instead of what needs to be done, but this is folly.

The reason men's organizations are beginning to do this is because most of them believe in the religious philosophy of Evolutionism, and so they say: Men had to be the provider and women had to be the homemaker because that's what we had to do to survive since the days of the caveman. So what they want to do is give men more opportunities to be free to do whatever they want, instead of focusing on being a provider and working the long overtime hours.

I'm not against men sharing their desires, nor pursuing things they want to do, but there's much easier way to solve this problem, and that's by getting rid of the pagan, destructive, and non-sensical Evolutionism religious philosophy. Instead, we should embrace Biblical understanding. Men are willing to work hard, and sacrifice their lives for their women, but what they need is for the wife to accept HER own role by submitting herself to be the assistant to her husband under his authority, as it explains very clearly in Ephesians 5.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself... For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
-Ephesians 5:28-33

This is another reason Christians need to abandon new-age bible versions and pick up the King James Bible for their study. New-age versions change this to "respect" her husband, which destroys the intended function of the wife.

respect (v): to regard, to look towards
reverence (v): fear mingled with respect and esteem; veneration
(See 'help' & 'meet', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 7, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

For a woman to give "veneration" to her husband would be treat him with an attitude that she would treat a king. The reason for this makes sense when we consider the man's role is to be the authority, protector, and provider for her and her children, and in many cases, sacrificing his life for her behalf. With consideration to what he gives up for her, it fits perfectly that she should treat him and address him in this manner, just as anyone would treat a man who put himself in harm's way or sacrificed himself in some way for another's well-being.

Husbands are willing to make sacrifices, giving up his personal desires for the sake of his wife, but when resentment enters the wife, and she refuses to acknowledge the sacrifices he is making for her sake, he starts driving him away. I grew up all the time hearing about how much women do, how much women sacrifice, how much mothers do, how she doesn't get paid for her work, but I almost never heard anyone in my home, school, or church acknowledge how much work my dad was doing, and how much he provided for the family at home.

I think it's important to note that my dad wasn't perfect, and not only did he not engage with his children much (nor at all intellectually), but there was also physical and verbal abuse going on in our house. However, he worked many 16 hour days to put food on the table, to make sure we had a comfortable home to grow up in, and that we were educated (to the small degree a public school student can actually learn anything). The point I'm making is that the "bad-mouthing" of men was quite common in our household (especially with two older sisters to throw into the mix), which firmly taught me feminist philosophy as a young boy, and my family had no idea at the time what consequences that would have on myself and my brother. (That's a long story for another time.)

When young girls are learning from their mothers, sisters, school, church, television, books, and music that "I don't need a man" and "I'm an independent woman," then she rejects the Biblical role of men. This philsophy makes it incredibly difficult for the girl to grow up to have a good marriage because she's already rejected the role of the man before she's married him, and often, the friction of conflict in the household leads to divorce because she's become what the Bible calls a "brawling woman."

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

Brawling is fighting and quarreling, in which the woman just loves to fight and argue with the man she's married to, and refuses humble herself to her husband's authority. The Bible is saying that it's better for a man to sleep up on the roof than to be in the same house with such a wicked woman, and men who have experienced this will know what I'm talking about.

Women who have had good fathers typically don't say, "I hate my father," women who have good husbands typically don't say, "I hate my husband," and women who've experienced being around good men don't say, "I hate men." Let's consider a hypothetical example of a white woman who has a loving relationship with her adopted black father; it would not make any sense at all for her to say "All blacks are evil," when she has a loving relationship with a black man, and likewise, it makes no sense for a woman to say "All men are evil" when she has a loving relationship with a good man, which means most feminists have grown up without any loving influence of a righteous, God-fearing man.

The question we really have to consider is: How can a woman develop a loving relationship with a man when she hates men? Feminists will never develop loving relationships with men for the same reason KKK members will never develop loving relationships with black people. (i.e. It's called sexism.)

In addition, many of these feminists CHOSE bad men, or their mothers chose bad men, or sometimes they chose good men but refused wifely/motherly responsibilities, so the good men left, but in most of today's feminist cases, they choose poorly and refuse to accept responsibility for their choices. (i.e. The man is blamed for everything because they believe women can do no wrong.) In the U.S., women have a choice of who they marry; they're not forced into it. Women have a choice to have sex outside of marriage, and they also have a choice of who they have sex with. These choices have consequences, and American women today are so pampered, they believe they deserve the privilege to make bad choices without suffering the consequences, and they need hard working fathers and husbands in their lives to teach them proper responsibility.

In summary, the Biblical role of a man is to be the provider, working as God told Him after the fall (Gen 3:17-19), the protector, as God told men to do the same as Christ for the church (Eph 5:25), and the authority, as God told women that he would rule over her (Gen 3:16). The protector role is indirectly mentioned in Genesis because I believe that Adam took the fruit on purpose to try and save his wife, knowing what she had done (because Adam was not deceived), and so that he would not have to be parted from her. The problem in the U.S. today is that feminists are infecting the education of young men that they must be like girls, instead of teaching them their Biblical role, and when they can't fulfill their roles, they have little motivation to want to marry women, which is what we're seeing more and more of in our country when we hear the common phrase, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

We have a female-dominated society, in which a young boy grows up with a high percentage chance of never knowing or seeing his father. He's raised in a female-dominated household, then goes to a female-dominated school with a mostly female staff, who give the boys grades based on how female they can act, and then our government and schools sit in blind confusion, wondering why so many young men are joining gangs to try and find a male role model.

It's actually old news that fatherless homes are leading an ever-growing number of inner-city boys to join gangs to seek male influence and guidance they can't get in the home:
"A June 2013 study, entitled The role of the family in facilitating gang membership, criminality and Exit, noted: 'Those that made the link [between their family situations and their gang involvement], having gang-involved relatives, fatherlessness, domestic violence, and pent-up anger caused by parental neglect or abuse were all seen as having contributed to young people’s gang involvement.' The study, that interviewed current and former gang members, their families and key social care and probation officials, also contained testimonies from gang members such as Christopher, who 'talked about how being without a father led him to seek validation from his peers.' Another young man, Kai, 'related his gang involvement to not having a male influence at home,' the joint Catch 22 and London Metropolitan University study said. Researchers found relatives of gang-involved young people also raised the fatherlessness issue, with several affected mothers saying they lost control of their boys as they became teenagers... Practitioners interviewed also told researchers that in some single parent families, children often didn't get adequate supervision, which left them vulnerable [to] gangs. 'They haven’t really got that... male in the family, and so the mum’s gotta do two roles and she might, you know, work full time and not always have the time with the children,' one local council practitioner told researchers."
-News of the South, "Young Men Seeking Role Models And Fathers In Wrong Places," June 23, 2014, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [newsofthesouth.com/young-men-seeking-role-models-and-fathers-in-wrong-places]

A teachers' union got together to discuss the causes for getting into gangs based on their conversations and experiences with students:
"Some staff were of the opinion that a proportion of young people... were drawn into gangs for a sense of belonging, for acceptance and in some cases for protection - to have their backs covered... The lack of positive role models, the absence of a father in the home combined with too much freedom were seen to result in groups of young people with no respect for their elders... Children were joining gangs between the ages of 12 and 14, although some were recruited as young as nine or 10, the study said. Teachers said gangs had 'clear hierarchical structures', with older members recruiting younger boys to do work such as stashing guns and running drugs."
-Graeme Paton, "Family Breakdown Makes Children Join Gangs," The Telegraph, Apr 17, 2008, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895844/Family-breakdown-makes-children-join-gangs.html]

The young men and boys are joining these gangs for protection, guidance, belonging, and work, all of which are roles the father is vital in administering to young men. Certainly there are some exceptions to the rule, but the fact is that many of these gang members are coming from single-mother homes, which proves that single moms are simply incapable of completely fulfilling the role of dads.

In recent years, new statistical analysis has shown that suicide or attempted-suicide rates in teens is DOUBLED in single-parent homes:
"In recent years, the number of kids living with one parent has continued to rise. Now, a new study shows that children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide... This conclusion came after first identifying some 65,000 children of single-parent homes and 920,000 living with both parents beginning in the mid-1980s, and examining their death rates and hospital admissions throughout the 1990s."
-Sid Kirchheimer, "Absent Parent Doubles Child Suicide Risk," WebMD, Jan 23, 2003, retrieved Oct 17, 2016, [webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk#1]

The sad part about this article is that they insist on staying "politically correct" and not mentioning the fact we've already established in this article, that most single-parent homes are single MOMS, not single dads. Due to the cowardice of authors fearing the blowback, they don't want to point out the major problem of women divorcing men 2 to 1 in America, and that "single-parent" households are mostly women. The issue of a man dying at work or in the military has been a factor in creating a single-mother household, but when children realize their father died and literally cannot be with them, the suicide rates are not the same as children with mothers who have chosen to get rid of their husbands.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services have discovered that single-mother children end up living in poverty about FIVE TIMES more often than children in married households:
(See ASPE, "Information on Poverty and Income Statistics: A Summary of 2012 Current Population Survey Data," U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Sept 12, 2012, retrieved Oct 17, 2016, [http://bit.ly/2eJTdKv])

Children growing up without fathers are much more likely to turn to alcohol and drugs to deal with their inner pain:
"[Deane Scott] Beman (1995) [in study entitled "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse"] found that the absence of the father from the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
-James R. Dudley & Glenn Stone, Fathering At Risk: Helping Nonresidential Fathers, Springer Publishing Company, 2001, p. 62, ISBN: 9780826116178; Dudley is a professor at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, and Stone is an assistant professor at Miami University in Ohio.

Young women, do you want to increase the risk of your child suffering clinical depression? If not, you need a father in the house. Do you want to increase the risk of your child becoming addicted to drinking and smoking? If not, you need a father in the house. Do you want to increase the risk of your child growing up in poverty? You need a father in the house because even if you work a job to make more money, you won't be with your child. (i.e. parentless child) We need to stop this devilish propaganda that young women hear today (e.g. "I don't need a man") because both mothers and fathers need to be in the home, working in their individual roles as a unit, to have a healthy family.

You need a dad, or things go bad.

Certainly, you can survive without a father. Many homes have had to suffer the father dying, and they have survived, but over the years, the statistics I've read have shown that children that grow up with a father who died do significantingly better than children who grow up with a dad who left them.

The feminists love to brainwash the world into thinking there is an overall contempt for women in our society, and that men despise and use women at every given opportunity. The truth (as I demonstrated earlier) is that most men love women, and want to defend and care for their wives, children, mothers, sisters, and sweethearts at the cost of their own lives and well-being, but feminists want to destroy that, and they definitely want women to be ignorant of that fact so they can continue to act like victims.

As a side note, one of the reasons I didn't mention earlier of why feminists want to destroy the housewife and mother in America is because feminists don't like competition. The father of a household has a big executive job, and so does the feminist, but the difference between them is that the man has a woman at home to support him. The man's wife is an incredibly valuable asset, and feminists can't have an asset like the housewife, so she wants to destroy the man's advantage in the work force, but we need to keep in mind that the wife is only advantage to the husband if she fulfills her Biblical role and steps back to WILLINGLY allow the man to fulfill his Biblical role.

The Trans-Gender Fallacy

Because the world maintains Evolutionism philosophy ('way of thinking'), they falsely believe that what makes a man male or a woman female is their genitalia (i.e. penis/testicles or vagina/ovaries). The problem with this is that they believe the male and female roles have developed from the genitals they've received, but this is backwards.
The Biblical philosophy ('way of thinking') teaches that the Lord God gave men and women roles, and then provided for them the tools necessary to fulfill those roles. It is the rejection of this truth that leads people to believe that the only thing that makes someone male or female is a penis or vagina, and that's why transgenders foolishly believe they can mutilate their genitals and become another gender.

Surgical reconstruction is developing more exotic variations with each passing year, and it would not surprise me that in the near future, people start having surgery to make themselves look like animals, however, the same philosophical problems still apply. A man can have special surgery to attach long ears to the top of his head, and have his bones replaced with artificial cyborg parts to make his knees reversed so he can sit on hind legs and jump wherever he goes, but he will never be a rabbit--he will always be a male until the day he dies.

Once you're born a woman, you'll always be a woman, no matter what you allow someone to do to your body with a scalpel. Once you're born a man, you'll always be a man, no matter what you allow someone to do to your body with a scalpel. What's sad is that if God gives them repentance to acknowledge the truth, and they wake up one day and realize what they've done, in many instances, there's no returning what was lost. A person can have their body mutilated to look like another gender, change their clothing, change their hair, or anything else, but it won't matter because their core gender still exists, and whether or not they keep and accept the tools God gave them to fulfill that role is their choice.

The last time I heard the question, "Where would you men be without us women?" my response was, "In the Garden of Eden." Indeed, this is an answer that can make some people feel uncomfortable because it puts women back in their place, to remind them of where we all came from, why we are the way we are today, and what women ought to be, to allow men to be what they ought to be. Our roles were given to us by the authority of the Ever-Righteous, Almighty God, and He programmed us like this so that husbands and wives could function together in a way that produces healthy children who will learn righteous judgment and charity from Christ's Gospel that will save lives and souls.

Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding.
-Proverbs 4:1





 

Despite the media portrayal that feminism has almost completely enveloped our country, there are many American women out there firmly against feminism for quite a variety of reasons. Lauren Southern, spokeswoman for Rebel Media, said:
"[In feminism,] we do not see equal representation of men's and women's issues. Despite popular belief, feminism is not, in fact, a synonym for equality. I'm not trying to say that men have more issues than women. My point is that both genders have issues, and to argue that feminism is a movement for equality, and doesn't just represent one gender's issues, is quite frankly ridiculous. So this is why I'm not a feminist... I'm not a feminist because I believe I should prove I'm worthy of a job, rather than having it given to me to fill a quota."
-Lauren Southern, "Lauren Southern: Why I am not a feminist," Apr 8, 2015, retrieved Oct 25, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=vNErQFmOwq0]

But it's not just about pay and equality reasons. There are many women who have found out the hard way that nothing about the feminist propaganda turned out to be fulfilling, and in fact, the feminist movement was responsible for blinding them to the real desires the Lord God put in their hearts.

This is the testimony of ex-feminist, ex-lesbian, and ex-atheist Brigitte Bedard:
"'I was an atheist for as long as I could remember,' recalled Brigitte Bedard, a young-looking 41-year-old journalist and stay at home mother of six with cropped tousled brown hair and stylish thick-framed glasses. She was addressing a crowd of 200 participants at the Quebec Life Coalition pro-life conference on May 15 in Quebec City... Ms. Bedard grew up at a time when Quebec society was undergoing what historians call the 'Quiet Revolution,' a period of time from the early-sixties to the mid-seventies when Quebec society shed its Christian heritage and adopted secular values. 'I was born in 1968 — talk about bad luck,' she joked. Bedard had a typical childhood in a non-religious household, and went to the notoriously leftist Université du Québec à Montréal, where she studied literature, eventually graduating with an MA. 'I filled my mind with all the radical feminist literature — I drank it all up,' she said.
She began a series of heterosexual relationships, which all ended badly. 'Prodded along by what I was reading, I began thinking that since all my heterosexual relationships were failures, that I might be a lesbian.' And in fact she dove into the lesbian lifestyle, and admitted that she revelled in it for quite some time. 'It was actually a very good time, in a way, being with a big gang of girls, tearing up the town, chain-smoking like there was no tomorrow. I was also very sexually active.' Despite the fun and the excitement of the lifestyle, she felt broken, she recalls. 'I was a mental wreck. I just felt that I was spinning out of control, that I was keeping appearances but I was miserable inside.' Things came to a head when, inexplicably, she broke into tears one night at 3 a.m. and began shouting in her empty apartment in a trendy district of Montreal, imploring God to 'take her away.' 'Here I was, a militant feminist lesbian atheist lying on my apartment floor crying my head off imploring God. I wasn't in my right mind, but I was desperate for help.'
She began seeking help, meandering in and out of countless 12-step type programs, in the hopes of finding some kind of solution for her anxiety and 'messed-up life.' To make matters worse, she had just quit smoking: 'I was suddenly forced to face life in the raw, without any protection or buffer'... [After some angry lashing out at people, she broke down and admitted the truth.] She now works as an independent journalist and happily-married stay-at-home mother of six. Life for her now is not all peaches and cream, however... Remarking on the differences between her life now and in her lesbian days, she quipped: 'Living with a man is definitely a pain, but living with a woman all the time was a living hell.'"

-Georges Buscemi, "Brigitte Bedard: Ex-lesbian, feminist and atheist now a stay at home mom of six tells her story," Life Site News, May 20, 2010, retrieved Oct 12, 2016, [valuesvoternews.com/2010/07/brigitte-bedard-ex-lesbian-feminist-and.html

So we can take away from this that Brigitte's true desire was exactly what the Bible says her true desire would be, that is, to be a wife and mother. Her rage and anger was really because everything she was living was a lie, and I find it very sad that all the other raging feminists are acting out that same unjustified aggression against all men in a very similar manner.

Sara Giromini, former Italian feminist who was known in her feminist days as "Sara Winter," has come forward publically and denounced feminism. She participated in topless protests, made hateful videos, and wrote hateful articles, until 2015, she came forward with the truth and asked for forgiveness:
"'Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement, so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality,' she says in a Dec. 15 YouTube video titled 'I ask Christians [i.e. Catholics] for forgiveness for feminist protest... I saw the feminist movement cover up for pedophiles,' Giromini warned. 'I saw the feminist movement persecute women... I am a witness to the fact that today in the feminist movement women are not of any importance but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred that the feminist sect cannot allow to die.'"
-Douglas Ernst, "Ex-Feminist Apologizes to Christians, Shocked by Forgiveness," World Net Daily, Dec 31, 2015, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [wnd.com/2015/12/ex-feminist-apologizes-to-christians-shocked-at-forgiveness]

It's true that feminist organizations heavily encourage homosexual activity, especially in women, because it's considered "rebellious." Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, whose authored works demonstrates her deranged obsession with sex, said:
"When a woman reaches climax with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."
-Sheila Jeffreys, quoted by Urban Dictionary, "Feminism," retrieved Aug 25, 2016, [urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism&defid=3892213]

In case you may not have understood this, Jeffreys is claiming that women should reject any sexual pleasure they encounter with their husbands, otherwise they are rewarding men's so-called "oppression of women." The serious problem with this quote is that it depicts sex as just some fun thing people do on a Saturday night, instead of observing it as the process from which children are born; or in other words, instead of taking the worldview of the Lord God being the creator of sex and making the production of children a pleasurable experience (i.e. "be fruitful and multiply" -Gen 1:22), Jeffreys writes this quote as a fornicator and adulterer who hates the law of God and the restrictions He puts on sexual intercourse.

I was unable to find the original sources for Jeffreys' quote (and normally, I wouldn't include it), but I have little doubt she did indeed write/say this. Just look at the titles to the books she's famous for writing:
  • Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution
  • The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution
  • The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade
The feminist movement is jam packed full of lesbians. It draws them in because it is the only place they can go to justify their wicked lifestyles, using other sin-filled women to pat each other on the backs until they feel better about their choices. Romans 1 says:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
-Romans 1:26-27

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mind back before I was a Christian (I was a teenager back then), and his sister decided to become a lesbian, so we went through what little of the Bible we knew to try to find any Scripture against lesbianism. We were unable to find it in our ignorance, but today, I would have a proper answer for it because Romans 1 condemns them, and when it says they'll receive "recompence of the error which was meet," it means they're going to suffer the consequences of their actions; namely:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:32

If these lesbians don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, death in hell awaits, on top of the cursed life they build for themselves, but they love to surround themselves with those who do the same wicked deeds, as Sara Winter said, "Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement." These women will always tell you to your face that they're happy and content, but it is a lie because they will NEVER be happy or content until they come to repentance in a broken state.

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
-Proverbs 29:18

He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso trusteth in the LORD, happy is he.
-Proverbs 16:20

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-Hebrews 13:4-5

Christians ought not to be afraid of these hateful, warmongering lesbians, who have no love of the truth, no matter how much power and influence they gain from the state and the media.

So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
-Hebrews 13:6

In addition to Sara Winter's testimony of pedophilia being protected from within the feminist movement, I also found some interesting articles about Sweden's feminist problem. About 200 men decided to take matters into their own hands and attacked a group of Arab refugees who were known rapists, but feminists began to protest the white men who came to their rescue, meaning that they would rather be raped by foreign visitors than to have their own Swedish men come to save them. (Or in other words, they don't want to be grateful to men in any way.)
(See Barritrad, "Swedish feminists: 'Please don’t protect us if we get raped by immigrants'," Feb 3, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [barritrad.com/swedish-feminists-please-dont-protect-us-get-raped-immigrants]; See also Liam Deacon, "Feminist Swedish Politicians Defends Migrant Rapists, 'Worse' When Western Men Do It,' July 5, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [http://bit.ly/29jV7LP])

Also, witchcraft, abomination in the eyes of the Lord God that is gaining ever-growing popularity in modern American culture, has become a feminist icon:
"Witches are having a cultural moment... the magical woman is seeing a resurgence in pop culture — and also gaining new respect as an enduring feminist symbol... 'Young women in particular are looking for an archetype outside the tired virgin/whore binary that we're offered, and the witch can do just that,' [Kristen] Korvette [scholar of witchcraft] said. According to Pam Grossman, a curator, writer and teacher of magical practice and history, the witch is self-possessed and in control in a way that resonates with modern women. She explained: 'Traditionally female archetypes get power from other people. Think about things like the mother, the queen, the daughter — these are all lovely archetypes for women, and yet they’re deriving their power from their relation to other people, whereas the witch, she has power unto herself.'"
-Ryan Buxton, "Why The Witch Is The Ultimate Feminist Icon," Huffington Post, Oct 8, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [huffingtonpost.com/entry/witches-are-feminist-icons_us_5616c9dfe4b0dbb8000dad40]

Feminist groups consist of many more lesbians and witches than most people are aware of, and certainly there are a number of women in these organizations who are casting Satanic witchcraft magic spells over their meetings, rallies, and protests. This has already started to be done publically, as some feminist witches protested in Chicago with a live spell-casting demonstration on the city sidewalk:
"On Feb. 6 [2016], a performance collective named WITCH [i.e. W.I.T.C.H. - Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, an actual witch coven] will be hosting a ritual protest in Logan Square in support of local housing rights. [i.e. communist laws under the false pretense that housing is a natural born "right"] The organizers describe the event as a 'hexing and protective spell action,' which will include recognizable elements of Witchcraft practice... This group of feminists chose to adopt the image and concept of the Witch to represent female empowerment in a way that was antithetical to socially-constructed, traditional gender roles and that flew, pun intended, in face of the patriarchal expectations."
-Heather Greene, "WITCH Stages Ritual to Protest Housing Inequalities in Chicago," The Wild Hunt: Modern Pagan News & Community, Jan 31, 2016, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [wildhunt.org/2016/01/witch-uses-ritual-to-protest-housing-inequalities-in-chicago.html]

The WITCH group rallied together witches online from all over the country to continually cast spells on Donald Trump, who has become a scapegoat for feminism. One of the witches in Salem, Massachusetts commented on the effort:
"In general, people who are witchcraft practitioners tend to be on the more liberal side of the spectrum... It is a female-centric religious practice for women who are passionately feministic."
-Ana (refused to give her last name), quoted by Steve Annear, "Witches are apparently casting a spell on Donald Trump," Boston Globe, Feb 24, 2017, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [http://bit.ly/2mmDSQI]

Witches in feminist protests are not uncommon, and "spiritual feminists" in what's known as the "womanspirit movement" or the "goddess movement" have appeared in well-known protests to bring their witchcraft to the mix:
"The womanspirit movement has been labeled ahistorical and apolitical by materialist feminists. Spiritual feminists counter that religion influences politics and that creating a new religion is a political act. Spiritual feminists have been involved in many political protests, including those against the military at Greenham Common, Great Britain; against the nuclear power plant in Diablo Canyon, California; and for women's reproductive choice."
-Cheris Kramarae & Dale Spender, Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge, Routledge, 2004, p. 2051, ISBN: 9781135963156"

The so-called "women's reproductive choice," more commonly known as abortion, or more simply put as CHILD MURDER, is an issue also closely related to witchcraft in the U.S. There are abortion clinics that have hidden rooms with witchcraft altars adjacent to the surgical room so that all the abortions can be used as human sacrifices, but this is a topic I would like to save for another article specifically on abortion in the future. (I'll try to remember to add a link here to that article when I get it completed.)

This kind of protest will only become more popular over time because witchcraft is foundational to feminism, and groups always operate stronger as a cultic unit than a random gathering. The following practicing witch claims that witchcraft is inherently connected to feminism, meaning that if you embrace feminism, you embrace witchcraft:
"I am a witch. I spend a lot of my time scraping candle wax off my kitchen table, making my own incense, and praying to Gods and Goddesses most of the world has already forgotten. Witchcraft means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To me, witchcraft is an amazing tool that I’ve used to bridge the gap between religion and politics – to make my everyday practice something that not only could be feminist, but is inherently so. While many folks today seem to link religion (most often Christianity) with conservatism, my religious practices, and specifically my practice of the craft, is something that brings me even closer to my feminism and anti-capitalist ideologies."
-Kris Nelson,, "3 Exciting Ways Witchcraft and Feminism Intersect," Everyday Feminism Magazine, Nov 19, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/witchcraft-and-feminism]

Do you really believe it's a coincidence that the strong tie between witchcraft and feminism has been kept out of the media? Witchcraft is spreading like wildfire thanks to feminism (among other things), because the two concepts go hand in glove:
"'I'm really a witch,' rapper Azealia Banks quipped last January, shortly before all hell broke loose on her Twitter account... It came out in the middle of a run about black Americans and their relationship to Christianity [i.e. Catholicism]: 'I wonder if most of the black American Christians in the US know WHY they are Christian. [i.e. She's connecting Catholicism to Christianity.] I wonder if they even consider for a SECOND that before their ancestors came to the Americas that they may have believed in something ELSE.' Not uncontroversial, but not wrong. Banks then suddenly took a hard left into what seemed like either a joke, or an unexpected embrace of Harry Potter fan fiction. She went on: 'But really, it’s all about magic. The most magical people are the ones who have to deal with oppression, because the non-magical are jealous. That’s why Jews and Blacks have been persecuted over and over again throughout history. Because they have the most magic ... all I’m trying to say is that black people are naturally born SEERS, DIVINERS, WITCHES AND WIZARDS. we have REAL supernatural powers, and the sooner we ALL learn to cultivate them and access them, the sooner we can REALLY fix s**t.' Then she joked that racism might end a lot sooner if black people could make their enemies sicken and die with a thought,"
-Sady Doyle, "Season of the witch: why young women are flocking to the ancient craft," The Guardian, Feb 24, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/witch-symbol-feminist-power-azealia-banks]

The author to this U.K. article goes on to talk about an interview she did with a witch who calls herself "Starhawk." Long time readers of our ministry's publications may remember that name from our article "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell," in which Starhawk (whose real name is Miriam Simos) wrote an article telling the story of how C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia made her a witch. Starhawk was quoted in The Guardian concerning the connection between feminism and Wicca.
(Read "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell - C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

"'I’ve been involved with this resurgence of interest in spirituality since the 1960s,' Starhawk told me during a phone conversation. 'It's like suddenly the world opened up and people realized there wasn't just Judaism, Christianity, Islam. There was a whole world of eastern religions and traditions. In the 1970s, with the resurgence of the feminist movement, a lot of us began to investigate a feminist spirituality and the goddess traditions of Europe and the Middle East.' Wicca, with its focus on a goddess (rather than a male god – though it has those too) and its relatively open approach to creating canon, was a natural fit for many feminist women interested in writing their own spiritual script."
-Sady Doyle, "Season of the witch: why young women are flocking to the ancient craft," The Guardian, Feb 24, 2015, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/witch-symbol-feminist-power-azealia-banks]

There's a "Legacy of the Witch" festival of feminists that meets annually, hosted by "slutist.com," in which they participate in all sorts of sick, twisted traditions, music, and shows. Their advertising posters and images are so explicit, I can't publish them here.
(See "Legacy of the Witch: A Slutist Feminist Festival," slutist.com, Nov 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 21, 2016, [slutist.com/legacy-of-the-witch-a-slutist-feminist-festival])

With all that in mind, let's continue to look at Ex-feminist Kim Keller's story about being a defiant feminist since she was a young girl, but after the death of her friend, she was shaken out of her delusion:
"Over time, parts of my angry feminism dropped away. Both female and male mentors helped me launch my career. I married a guy who loved me for my outspokenness and didn’t want me to be passive or meek. I gave birth to a daughter and realized no career was worth sacrificing her well-being. I recognized there was no great conspiracy to keep me down based on my gender. The only conspiracy was the feminist myth that females were victims, and I refused to be a victim... My feminist beliefs changed the most when my son was born and I recognized the bigotry he would face solely because of his gender. His boy-ness is continually stifled by societal efforts to make him more feminine – no rough housing, stay in your seat, and don’t play games with good guys and bad guys. While every child is unique, boys tend to be louder, more active and more physical than their female peers. It’s not a bad thing; it’s just different... I am deeply saddened that much of today’s 'feminism' focuses on sexuality over intelligence and talent, and I fight to protect my daughter, son and their peers from the ramifications of that belief system."
-Kim Keller, "Confessions of a former feminist," Roadkill Goldfish, retrieved Oct 15, 2016, [roadkillgoldfish.com/confessions-of-a-former-feminist]

Hopefully, this will help Christians to better understand what Paul said at the end of 1 Timothy 2:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
-1 Timothy 2:14-15

First of all, many people have misunderstood the context of Scripture by wrongly thinking that every instance of the word "save" (or "saved") is talking about the saving of the soul. The Bible does talk about the saving of the soul, but also the saving of food (Gen 14:24), the saving from rape (Deu 22:27), and the saving of life (Jos 2:13). Here, the Bible is saying that a woman, though the process of having a child, will be saved from deception of the Devil, IF she follows the commandments of God in sobriety, because there are still many women out there who have had children and are still deceived because they have remained in iniquity.

I think it's fascinating how the Word of God foreknew this feminism to be a problem, and that He would point out that women's desire (i.e. their pre-programming) is to have children and be help meets. Feminism teaches women that having children is abhorrent, encouraging abortions all the time, saying that killing your babies is a blessing that will make you an "independent woman," but consider what the Lord Jesus Christ said:

But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
-Luke 23:28-29

Many feminists today are learning the hard way what the Bible has taught for thousands of years, while screaming lies at the top of their lungs that women are "liberated" feminism. Remember, the louder someone gets with their argument, typically, the less confident they are in what they're saying. There is no liberty without the Lord Jesus Christ, and there is a vail that blinds them to the truth.

Nevertheless when it [the blinded heart] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
-2 Corinthians 3:16-17

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:31-32

These feminists will not know freedom and peace until they know the truth, and the truth is that they are fallen creatures, just as all mankind is fallen. They need to know they're lost before they can be saved.
(Read "How to Gain Salvation" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Sadder still, all the ex-feminists I've just mentioned have claimed to have turned to "Christianity," but they're actually referring to the Catholic Church, which is paganism that is not of God. They've put their hopes in a false system that will lead them and their families to hell. I pray that they will be saved out of that false system and know the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ before it's too late.
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There's a reason feminists who hate men also hate God, and that's because God is an authority figure over us. Feminists hate any masculine role over them because they hate the role they were pre-programmed with, and thus, they hate the Almighty God and hate anyone who is associated with Him.

This female author talks about her experiences growing up as a feminist, but she is now an ex-feminist, working to expose the feminism movement. She describes the history and battles feminist have fought, and says:
"It seems to me that what many women want and expect from society is not equality, but rather a handicap. Having a handicap in life is not the same thing as having equality, and it makes the men who are suffering slights at our expense, resent us for it. It's counter-intuitive."
-Username CrazyBuster Micksbabe, "Confessions of a Former Feminist," Shrink 4 Men, Sept 1, 2011, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [shrink4men.com/2011/09/01/confessions-of-a-former-feminist]

By counter-intuitive, she means that it's nonsensical in that when feminists expect hand-outs, they have to come from someone's pocket, and if feminists won't pay for it themselves, it's likely coming out of men's pockets. Even the very God they hate is the God who gave them life, mouths to speak, and hearing they refuse to use. Thus, she's saying that these women expect men to pay for their imagined feminist woes, and at the same time, these women also expect men not to resent them for it, which no different than slavery.

Rebecca Walker is the daughter of Alice Walker (famous feminist who wrote The Color Purple), and although Alice preached that motherhood was a form of slavery, Rebecca is now a mother and writes against the feminism her mother promoted. Rebecca now enjoys being a mother, and despite the fact that her own mother (Alice) disowned her, she wrote a book called Baby Love: Choosing Motherhood After A Lifetime Of Ambivalence, which gives her testimony about how her mother mostly ignored her altogether:
"But, while she [Alice] has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel. My mother would always do what she wanted - for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?"
-Rebecca Walker, "How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart," Daily Mail, May 23, 2008, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [http://dailym.ai/1eIgcxr]

SELFISH is the key word there, and I would add in BIGOTRY (i.e. intolerant of anyone holding a different opinion) as well since Alice completely disowned her daughter for wanting to be a wife and mother. Again, these feminists are not creating opportunities; they're trying to destroy the family unit for the sake of their communist lusts.





 

I needed to make a "Final Thoughts" section to add more things I didn't think I could fit in other places in this article, and to talk about some of my own perspectives on this issue. Based on what I've seen and experienced, I find that most women in my generation in general, not just feminists, have been plagued with feminist propaganda, and they tend to not want to take responsibility for their choices. Most of the time, I saw men taking responsibility for their choices, AND the choices of women on top of that, because I've watched most of the women I've known lie to themselves and others, pointing fingers more than looking inward; which is not to say that men don't do these things too (they often do), but women are incredibly frequent on this problem, much moreso in my experience.

To give a personal example, I once dated a (self-proclaimed "Christian") girl for a very short amount of time, and she invited me to drive up to New York to meet her parents. On the way there, I noticed she kept speeding up without realizing how fast she was going (she was sometimes going 90mph on a 70mph road), I pointed out to her to watch her speed, but after the fourth time, I got tired of doing it, so I just let her suffer the consequences. She got pulled over by a police officer about 30 minutes later, and ended up with her first speeding ticket of $150. When we arrived at her parents' house, she confessed the ticket, but then told them, "Well, Chris was talking to me and I got distracted," in effort to cover any personal responsibility. The fact was that she threw me under the bus to save herself, and I didn't say anything; I just took the blame so she wouldn't have to, but men need to understand that women like this have very low moral foundation and are very dangerous to a marriage, and thankfully, I didn't date her much longer afterwards (for numerous other reasons, lying being one of them). This is what I mean when I say that feminists have trained women to point the finger outward instead of inward.
(Read "Marriage: What Christians Should Know" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Feminists are largely an outcry of single mothers, or girls who have grown up in a single-mother homes, and that outcry is aimed at men, willing more to throw men under the bus so they won't have to suffer any consequences for their actions. The grand majority of feminists typically fall into two categories on that point:
  1. She chose to have children with a wonderful man, and she drove him away with her horrible personality, attitude, and physique.
  2. She chose to have children with a terrible man, and she ignored all the warning signs that he would be terrible.
Either way, the feminist then comes to the conclusion that "all men are evil" based on the willingly ignorant denial of responsibility for personal choices. In America, we have no laws that force women to have sex with someone, and we have no laws that force women to marry someone, so that means she made a choice, and she wants to blame someone else for her decisions.

Certainly, there are some men out there who are just set on leaving their wives out of their own selfishness, and I acknowledge that. However, the problem is that almost every woman I talk to will claim to be in that small percentage, or in other words, almost all women I meet claim nothing was their fault or they couldn't have done anything better. When they do that, what they're really saying is: "When it concerns a marriage, it is impossible for women to do wrong," that is, men have 200% responsibility, 100% of their own and 100% of their spouse, but women have 0% responsibility.

Concerning female rape victims, one thing that is often said to them to help them "feel better" is, "There was nothing you could have done." Let me make this clear: You should NEVER say that to a rape victim because what that communicates to her is that no matter what she does, no matter what precautions she takes, if a man decides to rape her, there's nothing she can do to stop it, and she'll end up living her life in a constant state of fear. Sadly, this same type of phrasing is the attitude women hold concerning divorce.

As we saw earlier, women file for divorce 2 to 1 over men, so who is it that really wants the marriage to end? Obviously, the women want it to end more than men. How can women blame men for failed marriages when women more often initiate the separation of the family? (In the Bible, women were not permitted to write bills of divorce; men were the ones with the responsibility to make that decision. Deu 24:1, Mark 10:4)

To say to a divorced woman, "There was nothing you could have done," is to say to her, "Men are at fault for everything, so blame them and take no responsibility." If a wife really has a desire to please her husband and turn their marriage around, there are many things she can do. Remember the example I gave earlier about a free-market restaurant? I explained how business owners think when trying to get more people to spend money at their restaurant, and for a business owner to say, "There's nothing I could have done," is to say that everything is the customer's fault, which doesn't make any sense.

If restaurant owners wants to have satisfied customers desire to spend money in their restaurant, then they need to examine their business model, and likewise, women who want to have satisfied husbands desire to spend money on their wives, home, and children, then they (ladies) need to examine their business model. Although the Bible has commandments for men and women to stay married, at the same time, there are commandments for husbands to love their wives, and wives to reverence their husbands, so effort needs to be made by both parties to maintain a good marriage. Just as customers in a nice restaurant are treated like royalty, husbands who are treated like royalty in their home will want to keep coming back, and I'd like to make some suggestions for stay-at-home wives and mothers, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Improve your cooking. Take some cooking classes or looking up Youtube videos that teach recipes and cooking techniques, increasing the quality of the meals in your home to the point that your husband says to his co-workers, "Sorry guys, I can't hang out with you tonight, my wife's making my favorite." Make your cooking so good, his friends and neighbors want to be in your home as much as he does, and healthy meals that will improve his overall well-being.
  • Improve your personality and demeanor. Work hard to be more friendly, gentle, and non-combative with your husband. Let him know how wonderful he is on a regular basis, and find small ways to let him know your appreciation for his hard work. (Hint: Good food works wonders.)
  • Improve your appearance. Don't walk around the house in your pajamas or sweat pants all the time. Treat your home like a place of business by wearing a nice dress or outfit for him, and ask his opinion about how you look. Ask him if there's anything about your appearance he would like you to improve, and be prepared to take his criticisms into consideration without being upset so he knows that his thoughts and feelings are welcomed by his wife in his home. Although the Bible tells us that beauty, in the end, is vain, it doesn't say that beauty is sin, especially for your husband.
  • Improve your physique. Start jogging for 20 minutes a day, or get a gym membership and start working out 2 or 3 times a week. Get serious about losing weight and toning up to look pleasing in the eyes of your husband. (Warning: This may lead to more children.)
  • Improve your skills in the bedroom. Sadly, there are many men, including Christian men, who are turning to pornography, even though the Bible strictly says that's sin/fornication (Mat 5:28), and though it is men's responsibility to stay Biblically founded in their own actions, it's no reason for women to think they can't do something about it. Find out what your husband likes, and give it to him (within Biblical reasoning). Get creative, and be so skillful in the bedroom, he would never want to touch a computer for the rest of his life. (i.e. Get motivated!)
  • Be more open. Ask your husband his opinion on the changes you're making, and find out if he's pleased with you. Let him know you're doing these things for his pleasure and enjoyment, and that if he has any critiques, that he is welcome to voice them, and let him know he will be loved, listened to, and honored for voicing his thoughts and feelings about his wife, home, and children. (Again, it's important not to get upset by the criticisms because crying and/or running out of the room gives him a negative response that leads him to believe he can't share his thoughts, opinions, and feelings with his wife.)
I'm not saying that all women need to do all these things on this list, and of course there are some women who have injuries, or are limited due to old age. On top of that there are some households that have abusive, ungodly men who do wrong, and I'm glad that shelters are very widespread and available to help women and children in those situations, but we also have to recognize the plague of feminism, and how it is ruining families via the wife and mother. I'm simply saying that women need to stop acting like victims, and start thinking about what they CAN do, not what they can't do. Christian wives: Since you're in the marriage for life, that means whether your household is a home or a prison depends on you.

And ladies, you don't have to do it alone; for Christian women specifically, you could find other women, young and old, in your church who want to do these things for their husbands to improve their homes, and start up a group in your church called "The Better Wives Club," in which you can all work together to be the best wives you can be, and inspire other young women and girls to do the same. Sadly, most Christian women will not do things like this because, first of all, they don't know they've adopted feminist philosophy, and second, they believe that because men are commanded not to lust after any other woman except his wife, that they don't need to do anything to maintain his interest in her and their household.

That kind of feminist folly can ruin your marriage very quickly. Ladies just think about it for a moment; what if men decided they don't need to do anything to maintain their household, and they just stopped providing income, stopped protecting the family when an intruder enters, and stopped caring about his authority by just putting his nose in a TV all day long?

Seeking the attention of men is something young girls do instinctively, but when they're married, for some strange reason, that stops. Mothers often don't teach their daughters that they ought to maintain that to a certain degree, let alone teaching them what it takes to accomplish it. Because feminism enters the home and the father is not there, the young girls also don't learn the skills they need to discern between the good loving men they're looking for, and evil abusive men they don't want.

Young girls tend to want to learn to do things that will make them more attractive to boys, and gain the attention of boys, so the young girls can have their pick of the best man they can find. Girls want to learn to put on make-up, want to train themselves to be fit and flexible, like to learn how to do their hair up in various ways, etc. The catch-22 of this is that by becoming more attractive to men, she will not only attract the men she's looking for, she will also attract men she is NOT looking for, and because she's not a man that can fully understand men, one of the greatest defenses a young girl has is her father, who can impart to her the knowledge of how to discern between the good and bad men.

This fatherless (i.e. "I don't need a man") household typically results in no good advice and wisdom coming from the single mother because she projects her hatred and fear of men onto her daughters AND her sons, which ruins them both. I emphasize sons because that is an issue rarely discussed in U.S. society today. It's no wonder that boys are being thrown in the garbage, and the struggles of men are being ignored, since our ever-increasing population of single mothers are teaching their children (by their words and actions) that men are disposable, and if a U.S. child has the misfortune of being born a boy, he is being taught from day one that he needs to act like a girl.

It's important to note that the Bible calls this "effeminate," (a word which has been removed from most new-age bible versions) meaning men that are acting like women. Christians, washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ, are supposed to cleanse and sanctify themselves from such devilish philosophy:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The Bible so seriously condemns men acting like women, the Lord God says that those who act such way are hell-bound, but so many church-goers are still programming their boys to be women (and this is typically because most church buildings today don't follow God's Word). This sometimes happens directly, and sometimes indirectly, like when they put them into the public education system that gives them letter grades based on how feminine they are, or through TV and movies that teach them the same corrupt values, but nonetheless, they're learning it just as much in the average, leavened, 501c3 corporate church building as they are in public schools.

To give a personal example, when I was 17 years old, I was attending a church building in Indianapolis with my parents, and in the youth group was a young woman who had just started her freshman year at college. I asked her what she was studying, she shared it with me, and I found it so interesting, I asked if she would email me some of it so I could look over it. She agreed, but I heard nothing back from her, so a couple weeks later I saw her in the youth group again, walked up to her, put my hand on her shoulder, and said "Hey, you told me you would send me that info, but I never got anything from you," to which she responded that she had forgotten about it.

The following week, I had one of my few friends pull me aside and tell me that this girl was telling her friends that I sexually molested her during that encounter, and I knew he was telling the truth because he had no idea I had talked to her at all. I don't think anyone even stopped to consider what that did to me back then. First, I was horrified that anyone would ever think I would do something like that, but also it ruined my perception of women for many years to come, and ingrained in my mind that I was a sick and useless boy that had to somehow prove that I wasn't what I was claimed by others to be; thus, I ended up in a series of horrible relationships with horrible women I should have never had anything to do with. (This was only one of many instances which led me to tolerate terrible women, but I was just giving one example.)

I never told my parents about the matter, and the real question is: Why didn't I tell my parents? When I was growing up, my younger brother and I had two older sisters, and on the rare occasion my parents would go out for an evening, my sisters were obviously in charge. However, my sisters decided to run the household the way they wanted, often barricading my brother and me in the basement, and did things that were against household rules in general, and other specific wrongs to my brother and me, the details of which my sisters probably wouldn't even remember. (I know younger siblings can be annoying, but that's not a reason to mistreat them.) When my parents would get home, the girls would tell their account of events, and when we boys would try to tell our account of events, the girls were automatically believed. So the message I received when I was younger was that girls were to be believed, but boys were not to be believed, and so to the point of the young woman accusing me of sexual molestation I didn't commit, embedded in my mind was a philosophy that girls would automatically be believed about anything they say, so one false accusation against me would immediately get me in trouble if my parents found out. (Hopefully, that example will help readers understand the danger of feminist philosophy.)

Over time, I began to recall more and more of these instances in which women were crying sexual abuse when there wasn't any at all, and I can remember male friends and co-workers in tears because they were accused. Whereas females are encouraged to come forward and speak up about any problem they're having, males do not get the same privilege, and often their speaking up about issues leads them to being scolded, ridiculed, or punished.

I remember listening to an older woman who, after starting numerous shelters to help battered children, started one of the first ever adult women's abuse shelter, and for both children and women, she got substantial funding. She then started to notice the number of men who were being abused by women, and when she tried to start a men's help center, she couldn't get any funding at all because wealthy persons and corporations need to see a return on their "charitable" investments, and there is no return on investment for helping men. She eventually changed the name of her organization to suggest "family" help, so she could get funding and be able to help men as well as women, and this is because the feminist propaganda in our country has permeated so deeply, most people don't even believe it's possible than men could be abused or suffer in any way, and that they're simply disposable pieces of rotting meat.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Charity" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It has taken me many years to discover why I was so frustrated growing up while trying to make barely enough to have a small single-room apartment, and couldn't seem to make enough to have a working vehicle, all the while being told I'm a "privileged white male" and couldn't find a woman interested in a financially poor sap like me. Where was my special privilege? It didn't exist. The truth is that the white male in the U.S. is the most under-privileged group in the country, treated as disposable as grains of sand, and large portions of my paycheck were removed to make room to provide privilege to all other groups of people who were not me.

The frustration I felt came from the lies I was being told, but I didn't know they were lies at the time. All I knew was that what I was seeing and what I was being told were two different things, and it took me many years to let go of all the bitterness and anger that built up in me.

What I saw with my own eyes is that women in the U.S. were the most privileged class of people I'd ever seen. They were afforded luxuries and comforts, they were given protection and care, and I'd always seen that men were expected to provide those things for them. Don't misunderstand, this isn't to say that women don't work hard, but men are expected to afford women the luxuries to choose where they want to work, choose what type of work they want to do, and choose how frequently (or infrequently) they want to do it, which is extreme privilege and liberty that most men are never offered.

Phyllis Schlafly, who had six children and went on at age 50 to become a lawyer, in an interview right before she died at age 91, said:
"[Feminists] are against society's expectation that mothers should look after their own babies. They consider that that is part of the oppression by the patriarchy, and they're all the time talking about how unfair and mean the patriarchy is to women; all of which is nonsense because American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth."
-Phyllis Schlafly, "The Lost Interview," Freedomain Radio, retrieved Sept 13, 2016, [youtu.be/OPwTpiX-8ZU?t=4m2s]

Schlafly died while I was writing this article, and she spent most of her life fighting against the feminist propaganda, but it didn't seem that's what she started out fighting. She simply wanted to protect mothers and homemakers from persecution by feminists because that's who feminists really hated; for the fact that mothers and homemakers were provided for, and because they were an extremely valuable asset to the men in the offices where feminists were trying to compete for work. (i.e. Wives gave their husbands the ability to focus on his work without worrying about his home life; a luxury and advantage feminists can't have.)

Sadly, the feminist propaganda has infected our society so deeply that most people are not getting married, and many of them due to fear, as we can clearly see from the examples I gave earlier of men's lives being destroyed by women. As of 2014, the amount of single men and women rose to the majority, meaning that married couples are now the minority:
"According to data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for its monthly job market report, about 50.2 percent of Americans over the age of 16 were single in August. The amount of single Americans has risen more than 50 percent. In 1976 when the government began collecting such statistics, 37.4 percent of adults were single."
-Lauren Keating, "Statistics show majority of American adults are single," Tech Times, Sept 10, 2014, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [techtimes.com/articles/15321/20140910/statistics-show-americans-adults-staying-single.htm]

The two major reasons for this are, first of all, what I just mentioned, fear of women. This is not fear of men; it's fear of women, where men are not trusting women enough to marry them, and it's sad because the Bible says a husband should be able to trust his wife:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
-Proverbs 31:10-12

The second reason is that women are becoming much more promiscuous than they used to be, having feminist propaganda stuck in their heads that they are "liberated" women so they can have as much sex as they want without any consequences. Condoms, pills, and abortions have allowed sinful women to avoid the dangers of sex, and by that I mean getting pregnant, not that pregnancy itself is dangerous, but without a husband and home in which to raise and care for a child, it is quite dangerous.
(Read "Abortion: Paganism, Satanism, Sacrifices, and Witchcraft" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

So now we have a bunch of men and women who are simply sleeping together (i.e. sin/fornication) instead of marrying to start a family. One of the great rewards of marriage is supposed to be physical intimacy with a woman, but since men are now getting those rewards without paying the price, we now have a commonly used phrase that says, "Why buy the cow when he gets the milk for free?"

The Bible tells us that it's not good for a man to be alone (Gen 2:18), and that a man should leave his parents and bond with his wife (Mark 10:7), but with young women adopting feminist philosophy, becoming contentious brawlers, what options are young men left with? For the man who wants a family, how is he able to find a woman he can entrust with his home and children when she can destroy his life with a single word?

And the media helps the lying and ignorant feminists in every way they can, but we are instructed by the Lord God to be wise to these deceptions:

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
-Proverbs 6:23-24

These feminist organizations are overflowing with backbiters and haters of God who want to suck men dry for every resource they have. In the end, they're adulterers and fornicators who are using the government to get the precious life they seek:

For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
-Proverbs 6:26

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

Christian women with a strong Biblical foundation are needed now more than ever. Certainly, female readers will say in the hearts, "But we need men like that too!" I agree, but our U.S. society is not set up to protect men who stray from God's Word; it's set up to protect women who stray from God's Word, because Satan has designed it to his liking, and the Devil knows it is much easier to get women discontented than men. (It's long been known that women are easily discontented, which is why advertising so often panders to women.)

Author and researcher Rebecca Traister analyzed historical research and interviewed many women about their choice to be single instead of married:
"The choice not to marry isn't necessarily a conscious rejection of marriage," Traister tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "It is [about] the ability to live singly if an appealing marriage option doesn't come along."
-NPR, "Single By Choice: Why Fewer American Women Are Married Than Ever Before," Mar 1, 2016, retrieved Aug 30, 2016, [http://n.pr/1LVpEvq]

In the Bible, marriage is an "all-in" situation, where you become "one flesh" with your spouse, and you have no choice but to trust in him or her for the rest of your life. This is a scary situation, for sure, but today, people want insurance to protect them in case something goes wrong. If they don't like the person they're married to, they want an option to divorce, and if they decide not to be married anymore, they want to make sure they have full employment options. The bottom line is that they don't want to work for their marriage, they want an excuse and a lazy way out. I don't believe this researcher really got to the heart of the issue because what those women are really saying is that their choice not to get married or have children is because society has taught them that it is folly to trust men because "all men are evil" and "all men are rapists," so women don't want to go "all-in" with a man.

Likewise, a lot of American men don't want to go "all-in" with a woman either, and it's usually because many of them have never known an example what it's like to have a wife who loves and cares for her husband. Many young men are also being raised in single-mother homes, and to see vindictive women bad-mouthing their ex-husbands, or to occasionally see their father who is stuck paying child support for the better part of two decades, doesn't sound appealing to him, so he'd rather not trust in a woman; this all leads to men and women sleeping together in sin, but they won't marry each other in order to maintain a quick, back-door exit in case of emergency.

The argument often made for how all this feminism got started was over the right to vote, and we have to be careful because there are many teachers on the internet concerning this feminism issue that will advocate for what they call "first-wave" feminism, who were fighting for the right to vote. I disagree with any of the first-wave feminism, and the fight for women's right to vote because it's falsely named.

What most feminists don't even know is that it wasn't just women that couldn't vote in the U.S. back in the 19th century; most men couldn't vote either! The right to vote was granted only to those who legally owned property, which was only about 15% of the population, and personally, I wish we could return to that system. There are a few problems that have not been considered when analyzing the arguments of feminists on this issue, and I realize that 99% of the country is going to disagree with me, but I believe these points should be made.

The first point is that if someone doesn't own property, then they are not really contributers to the condition of the land over which they are voting for leadership, and thus, if they don't have a vested interest, they have nothing to protect. Let's consider a property owner who rents out an apartment building to tenants; in almost every instance, the tenants make very little money, which is why they're renting out of an apartment building in the first place.

The tenants don't have the extra money for things like education, so they vote in senators who will pass legislation to create a public education system, which is paid for through property taxes. Who pays property taxes: the land owner or the tenant? It's the land owner who pays the property taxes, so the majority of the tenants got together and overpowered the land owner to get property taxes initiated and raised, which hurts the land owner, and thus, the land owner must then increase the cost of the housing to cover the taxes, which puts more pressure on the tenants.

It is through the whining of those who don't have much that prices will go up, because contrary to popular belief, the government isn't an infinite bank of money. The money has to come from somewhere, and so it will inadvertently come out of the pockets of those tenants who now have the right to vote, which means they're actually hurting themselves.

There is a significant difference in philosophy between those who own and those who rent. Renters typically have the mindset of having things given to them instead of working for it, meaning that when something breaks (heat, air, water, electricity, etc), they complain to the property owner, and the property owner comes in to fix the problem, but property owners know that they have no one to turn to when stuff breaks, so they must rely on their own hard work and knowledge to solve problems.

Herein lies the problem in philosophy: The property owner votes in legislators who will maintain their right and liberty to be free on their own land, defend it, and keep their privacy. However, tenants (those who don't own property) have a mindset that things will be given to them, and that they have right to things they haven't earned, so they will vote in legislators who promise to give them things, but the things given to them are not free, and typically come out of the pocket of the property owner, which means that our country would be better off allowing only property owners to vote.

Those without property will always vote to take away the property (money, land, resources) of others and give it to themselves.
Only property owners have a stake in what they own.

The true purpose of voting should be to select representatives that will make sure laws and regulations protect private property, because without private property, there is no liberty. Voting, however, has turned into a smorgasbord of beggars, voting for who can give them the most free hand-outs (which aren't free because the money has to come from somewhere).

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
-Proverbs 5:15

The poor, or non-property-owning class, will always outnumber the property-owning class. For example, as of 2016, the city of New York is 8.5 million people, and most of them are renters, not property owners. When the poor "takers" outnumber the wealthy "providers," the poor will always win in taking what doesn't belong to them and distributing it amongst themselves.

Allowing everyone over the age of 18 to vote has really hurt this country in so many different ways. If you will read our article "Should Christian Vote?" you'll see where I demonstrated the massive amount of ignorance in young voters (i.e. those who don't own property), who typically vote based on how "cool" they think a candidate is, rather than having intimate knowledge of right, wrong, and whether or not their candidate is a moral leader.
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

One of the main reasons young people don't care about the selecting moral, righteous leaders is because they could not care less about morality and righteousness. One of the main reasons young people don't care about protecting private property and the free market is because they themselves don't own private property, and have had many things handed to them (i.e. government grants, education, Medicare, etc).

Of course, the argument people will always make is this: "What about military soldiers not having the right to vote, but being drafted into war?" Granted, military personnel should have a right to vote for their commander-in-chief, but that's only for PRESDENTIAL voting; there's a lot more voting that goes on besides the president. However, a quick amendment easily resolves this issue; simply make it so that anyone (whether they own property or not) who has served in the U.S. military is given the power to vote in the presidential election.

The reason some women felt left out of the process was because, typically, the title to land was owned by men, not women. So it was the men who voted, not the women, and in a few states, they had specific laws that prevented women from voting, even if they owned property, but despite what we're told by the media, a few women (in states that allowed it) did vote if they were sole property owners.

There's also a huge contradictory problem with giving all women the power to vote just on the grounds of being a citizen, especially in the 19th century. Most women ended up getting married, and so if she disagreed with the voting methods of her husband, she stepped up and cancelled out his vote, which not only takes away his voting power, but it also creates animosity in the household. With women being the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7) and more easily deceived due to emotional swaying, it's now scary when we consider that women are showing up at the voting booths more than men in the U.S. today. (Women have out-voted men since 1980.)
(See Catherine Rampell, "Why women are far more likely to vote than men," The Washington Post, July 17, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [http://wapo.st/2evpunU])

I know there's probably a thousand arguments out there about "what about this person" and "what about that situation," and really most of the answer can come down to charity. That's why the Bible teaches that theft and laziness is evil, that private property ownership and hard work is good, and that those who are wealthy should be charitable to those who have little out of the kindness of the hearts; not that the poor rally together and force the government to take what rightfully belongs to those who have earned it.

The bottom line is this: In America, it used to be that you had to work hard to EARN the right to vote. Now, it's handed to anyone freely, and most people not only have no appreciation of it anymore, but they also use their votes foolishly to get more for themselves.

Again, I pose the question: Who was more oppressed in the U.S., the women out on the streets protesting about voting rights, or the men who were dying overseas in WWI? Sadly, the women's rights movement used the dead soldiers as one of their excuses in demanding the right to vote without earning it; the soldiers had earned it by being in the military, and feminists built a bridge out of their coffins to march towards their devilish goals.

In the Bible, voting is not a right, and basic rights only consist of things having to do with life, liberty, and property. Voting is a privilege, but the communists/feminists claim a "right" to things that are not rights; for example, they claim "everyone has a right to Medicare" or "everyone has a right to education" or "everyone has a right to vote," all of which are privileges that need to be earned and worked for, not granted automatically by stealing from others.

Feminism arose not because of a lack of voting abillity, but out of a satanic desire in some women to rise above the authority of men. They wanted, and still want, to reject God's authority over them, and in the process of rejecting God's authority, they also must reject His Word, which gives authority to men over women. The hateful feminists then take the already-set male-created societal care automatically granted to women, designed by husbands for the benefit of their wives, and exploits them for personal gain. There is nothing more evil I can think of in this world than a woman who stabs in the back the person appointed to love and protect her.

The hate-filled fire of first-wave feminism (late 19th century) has only been fueled into the raging bonfire of hate in third-wave feminism (early 21st century), as we can clearly see by what they write:
"Kill the patriarchy kill all men #killallmen"
-hizunaencounter, Twitter.com, July 19, 2014, retrieved Oct 26, 2016, [twitter.com/hizunaencounter/status/490703050844438528?lang=en]

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

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

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

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

What's more absurd is that I've listened to feminists who have said these kinds of things in public videos turn around in other videos and complain that men won't ask them out on dates. Gee, I wonder what could possibly be preventing men from being interested in women like this?

When it comes down to it, the money it takes to upkeep feminists demands for all their special treatment is going to run out someday because men are not made of money. All these "free" government hand-outs are limited. When the money disappears, you'll likely see a sudden, widespread change in the attitude of feminists; in fear, they'll quickly run out to find a man and tell him how wrong feminists were, how wonderful men are, and see if he's interested in marrying her so she can get access to his resources.

The world can be a scary place when men are in charge, because after all, men aren't guaranteed to do what's right; however, in a world where women are in charge, pure destruction would follow, and all the wonderful luxuries we now enjoy would be destroyed in a short time. Women need men; there's no argument to be made on this, but the argument will continue from the mouths of foolish females blinded to the truth the Lord God gave to us.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:6-7

Those of you Christians who are born-again and sanctified in the truth, it's up to you to set a proper example. Let's do what's right over what's convenient, and be a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ by the results of our strong marriages and families. I pray this teaching would get in the hands of young men and women everywhere, and if the Lord God is willing, that this would save them from the snare of the Devil.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:23-26

And the commandments for Christian women:

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