Please help Captain Zarmband
Feminism
"Our feminised society is in an unending tape loop of female thinking which starts with "I want" and ends with "I want more". I have noticed more and more women wanting a return to a more traditional role with men making decisions. Western women are the most pampered people on the planet and yet they do the most complaining. It seems to me that women are their own worst enemies and it's an intrinsic part of their psychology to be dissatisfied with the results of their own decisions and actions. Our feminised society has not resulted in legions of content and happy women...just more complaining and more female unhappiness."
Captain Zarmband - 2005
"Be under no illusions the tide is turning and feminism has had its day. Men are sick of being belittled in the media, separated from our kids after divorce, and generally having our human rights washed away to appease spiteful feminists. The momentum of the backlash grows every day and has become an unstoppable force."
Captain Zarmband - 2006
Feminists Are Just Man-haters
Our society is dominated by Women's (wimmin's) thinking - whatever that is - and political-correctness. Consequently our society is in a state of self-imposed limbo. Men make decisions and accept responsibility..."wimmin" have meetings, drink coffee and eat hobnobs but decide bugger-all except that there is a requirement for more meetings and therefore extra hobnobs and possibly next time we'll have chocolate cake too. This is the way "wimmin" do things so that they don't have to take responsibility in case there's a problem later on.
Power yes...responsibility no.
Our culture is stagnating in risk assessment, decision by female controlled committees with responsibility accepted by no one. The result is total inertia and a blanket ban on all radical thinking and risk-taking. Carry on like this and our species is doomed, and frankly that's what we deserve. If "wimmin" had been in charge 30,000 years ago we’d still be living in caves.
The rise of feminism was watched carefully by the political establishment during the sixties (and before that during the Suffragette movement). When the political establishment watches political and social developments they ask two questions:
1. Will this situation harm us and our grip on power and control?
2. Can we use and manipulate this movement for our own purposes?
During the fifties in America things for ordinary people were good. Full employment, labour shortages that ensured high wages, cheap housing and staple goods, cheap petrol. Mr. and Mrs. Average and their 2.4 children had it good. The trouble is big business doesn't like that because a wealthy workforce is not controllable. Better to keep them hungry and in debt that way you can call the shots. In the sixties along comes feminism shouting about women going to work, not needing men, breaking up the family et al.... If you are Mr. Big Business this is music to your ears. Split up the family therefore two homes are required plus two of everything that we make will be bought. Ditto for all big business and as an added bonus Mr. Average, who's now divorced, is up to his armpits in expensive debt. He now has to work for less because angry females have entered the workplace prepared to work for less money (and then shout about equality). There is now a surplus of workers thus unemployment exists which further drives down wages and living standards. So a movement that was initially started by feminist communists paradoxically becomes very useful to big business.
The same has happened here in Britain with the housing market inflation which was caused by women entering the jobs market which enabled couples to obtain more debt. Therefore house prices explode which mainly suits two groups....money lenders.....and land owners. It's also jolly nice for big business because Mr. and Mrs. Average are up to their armpits in mortgage repayments thus ensuring that they will work unpaid overtime and generally kiss the corporate ass. Women are easily manipulated......just tell 'em something nice about themselves or tell them they are disadvantaged in some way......then step back. These are not my opinions they are found in every TV commercial. Men are less easily fooled because we view life in a more pragmatic way. We also use objective judgement, women do not and are incapable of anything other than subjective judgement with themselves at the centre of the universe. A woman's only interest in any question is "How does this affect me?"
My conclusion is that the movement that started with the Suffragettes has been hijacked by communists and then again by corporate big business/government power mongers. The Suffragettes got the vote...why? Not because they went on hunger strike or chained themselves to railings but because they helped the ruling elite win the First World War by doing men's work in the factories while the men were in the trenches being slaughtered and maimed in their millions. Same applies today. Lefty sixties feminists are helping big business with their corporate world domination programme. Of course they don't realise it because all they ask is "How does this affect me?" If there is a short term gain to be had then women will rush forward to sign up regardless of the long term consequences. They do this because they use emotion to make decisions and modern women's major ruling emotion is avaricious greed. If I were a politician or a corporate power monger every time I heard a feminist ranting I'd light another twenty quid cigar, sit back in my armchair and watch the money roll in.
The Swedish feminist party has collapsed in ruins after leading activists came clean about their policies. These batty misfits wanted a "Man Tax" to be paid only by men. They also wanted gender free names to be mandatory when naming a newborn baby. Any name that implied the gender of the child would be banned. Seems strange that Sweden needs a feminist party at all as 50% of Swedish M.P.s are women and Sweden has one of the highest number of females in the workforce. The Swedish public (including all sane women) have given the loony feminazis the boot and now they only have 1.3% of the vote. This story proves my point that these so-called feminists are not so much pro-women as much as they are anti-men. Well, being misfit man-haters they would be. Women need to see these nutters for what they are. They are not speaking for you sister....they just hate men...all men! If you don't believe me think about this. If these dipsticks had got their way with the "Man Tax" thing this would be detrimental to all heterosexual women because your man would have been heavily taxed and this would mean less money in your family budget. This would affect married women (or women with male partners) as much as it would affect their men. Get the picture? The only people that would be unaffected would be women who do not live with or who are not married to a man....... i.e. single women and women who live together.
All is revealed!
It seems that Swedish women worked this out as well....hence them turning their backs on this wacky sisterhood. In Britain these so-called feminists masquerade as representing ordinary women. Believe me they don't...they only care about the feminist left. If you are a hetero-sexual women (this was once refered to as "normal") then you are shooting yourself in the foot if you listen to these people. Their male-hatred will be as detrimental to you, sister, as much as it will be to your man. In Britain these leftie misfits hide themselves in the Labour party and are responsible for the anti-men legislation. They have a secret agenda of wrecking marriage and hetero-sexual relationships. The tax system now greatly benefits women who live as lone-parents and punishes married couples. This has not happened by accident, it's happened by feminist design. So the next time you switch on your TV and hear some New Labour feminist politician banging on about men this...men that....whinge, whinge....whine, whine...think about the Swedish "Man Tax." How will you feel when your man's pay packet has been savaged by this extra taxation.
Better cancel the holiday sister!
It seems to me that the whole feminist movement has been hijacked and manipulated for the benefit of big business and the government power mongers. Their aim is to produce a compliant public who will willingly accept their orders and buy their products. It is therefore in their interest that women have the power in relationships and control of the family purse strings. For instance women are told that being on the career treadmill is a blow for the feminist movement and an enhancement of their freedom. The fact that we men have been chained to organised work since the industrial revolution and as a result we've been ruthlessly exploited and controlled seems to pass them by. Women today have less control over their own lives than women of my grandmother's generation. But listen to women talk. On the one hand they'll tell you about the great advances made by the women's movement but then go on to complain about how much harder their lives are. Clearly both statements cannot be true! The reason for this illogical response is the ever present brainwashing that goes on via the media.
Who controls the media? Government and big business. I rest my case.
It seems that women have finally woken up to the fact that feminism has been a gigantic con. Many women believed that by going out to work they would tap into a wealthy lifestyle and get an interesting, well paid career. They thought that this new-found wealth would let them "have it all." A great career, marriage and a family.
see this article by Amanda Platell
Instead many find themselves trapped in dull, tedious wage slavery which impinges on their homelife. Married women are chained to work because of their huge mortgages which have come about because of massive inflation in the housing market caused by two income families. Most married couples cannot live on one income and women may well look over their shoulders to their mother's generation with envious eyes. Their mother and father could live on one wage because they lived before feminism encouraged women out to work.
Well what a blow for freedom girls.....go out to work and hand over all your monthly salary to the bank or building society.
Good old feminism freeing you from all that male oppression. Many women find themselves living alone in a world where men have stopped marrying because of the risks to them from divorce. Who wrote the divorce laws? Feminists who hate men. And so, many women live alone with just a cat for company and no prospect of things improving for them. Don't blame men, blame feminists. Well serves 'em right I say! For years women have bitched about how hard done by they are. Now they've had a taste of the masculine lifestyle they're whinging again. Funny, women used to tell men that we had it good but as soon as they adopt the traditional male career responsibilities all they do is bitch about it.
I watched a TV programme recently that has followed the progress of twenty doctors from the first day they signed on at medical school to the present day. We now see them a mere seven years after they qualified as doctors and guess what? None of the female doctors are still in full-time practice but all the men are. So, the National Health Service spends hundreds of thousands of Pounds on training and then gets less than seven years work out of the female doctors. And don't tell me that the females had to quit because they have kids, most haven't and many of the group are still single. These women sited stress as the main reason they left the profession. In other words they couldn't cope with the pressure that comes with the job. Strangely, every one of the male doctors has coped with this stress and all of them still work full-time as doctors within the health service. So the money spent on their training has reaped rewards whereas the money spent training the females has largely been squandered. Of course the women have a choice because the married ones can live off their husbands, an option not available to married men. The other female doctors have moved to easier work all of which is only a few hours a week. Again an option not available to men. Of course, the biggest loser in all this is the tax payer who paid for the female doctor's training and then received little in return. All I can say is thank goodness for the male doctors who have stuck it out and are still working in the health service. Without them where would we be? And women (apart from man-haters) agree with me.
The same applies to education. The whole point is that boys are having their education deliberately sabotaged by feminist teachers and educationalists. The feminist's agenda is to rig the education system so that it fails boys who then achieve lower qualifications than girls. Roll on ten years and women now fill the best jobs because they have better qualifications.....that's the feminist's plan. The only problem for them is that boys do better once they've left the feminists rigged school environment and outperform females in the workplace. The reason is that we have testosterone which makes us more energetic, decisive, focussed, ambitious and creative. There is also the point that men cannot marry into wealth as women have always done. Women look round for a man who has more assets and income than they have when choosing a partner. Men cannot do this as women reject any man who earns less than they do. We should have boys only schools with men only teachers. This is the only way that we can rid the system of the feminist saboteurs. Be under no illusions...women teachers are happy that boys under perform in schools, that's their plan. Why else has this situation persisted for the last twenty-five years? Because that's the way the feminists want it. It's time to fight back. Our sons deserve better than the treatment they receive at modern feminised schools which have become centres for gender-bigotry of the worst kind. They are turning out kids in their millions who do not have the skills employers require. The feminist educationalist have failed our children so get rid of them and their perverse nonsense and get back to proper education.
I watched a TV programme about mountaineering last night which gave a perfect example of why men and women cannot work together as a team because of the egos and manipulative behaviour of women. The team of mountaineers were attempting a difficult and dangerous ascent with a novice climber in the team. The team leader (a man) had deployed a female climber (supposedly experienced) to make sure the novice remained safe. She had been told to keep the novice securely roped at all times. Later on the team leader noticed that the novice had been left unroped by his female guardian. When the team leader told her about this she did what women always do when criticised.....she denied it. The leader persisted and was backed up by the novice himself and other experienced team members. When she realised that she could no longer deny that she had screwed up she shifted the goalposts again by complaining about the team leaders "attitude" and the fact the he had pointed out her mistake. She retorted "I don't like being lectured by you." OK.... let's just take that conversation apart for a moment. Firstly do you think that it is the team leader's responsibility to look after the safety of all team members especially a novice? Most people would say yes without hesitation. Secondly...given that he has seen a clear breach in safety procedures that had undoubtedly risked the life of a novice climber should he mention this to the person responsible to stop it happening again? Yes again. So the woman concerned is more interested in her own ego than she is in the safety and the life of her novice companion who she is supposed to be taking care of. Her mistake could have easily resulted in a fatality but this to her is less important than her own ego. This to men is a familiar scenario in every sphere of employment where women work alongside men.
Women do not like their mistakes being pointed out to them and will use every manipulative trick in their book to sidetrack and deflect any justified criticism. This makes them difficult and troublesome work colleagues and almost impossible staff members to supervise effectively, particularly in the climate of false accusations and the twisting of normal supervision into claims of sexual harassment. This has been done with the result that large payments have been obtained by false pretences and by lying. Women think that this is rather clever as it ensures the "kid gloves" approach by managers. But like everything in life there is a backlash and this is the increasing reluctance of large companies and organisations to employ women, particularly at a high level, because of the risk of these kind of female antics. In the "city," where a few years ago several high-profile large payments were conned out of several merchant banks, the number of female employees has plumetted. It seems that women are now regarded as too risky to employ and a male-only workplace is viewed as easier to manage and far less likely to end up in litigation following false accusations.
A friend of mine spent some time in the Royal Navy recently and he tells me that many male officers will not work in a room alone with a female because of the risk of false allegations. The Navy has paid out large amounts to females who have alleged sexual harassment. The usual modus opperandi is to claim that an officer has touched them inappropriately. This may be something as trivial as brushing against them within the cramped confines of a ships companionway or corridor where it's impossible for two people to pass without touching one another. Or it may be totally false allegations of sexual advances. The truth is that these females wanted to leave the service anyway and quite fancied a nice pay-off as a going away present. Once one female got away with this ploy the floodgates opened and a volley of claims have hit the MOD not only from the Navy but from all of the armed services. The cost of this has run to multi-millions and there seems no sign of the claims abating....why should it as it's easy money? This has also meant that the normal day to day business of running an military establishment is fraught with additional hazards as an officer's career can be ruined by a greedy accuser. A drill sergeant dare not even raise his voice to a female recruit because an inquiry may follow. These proceedings also give a female the platform to vent her venom and "get even" with anyone who she feels has slighted her, no matter how trivial the incident.
The MOD puts on its female friendly, equal opportunities face but behind closed doors probably longs for the days when the forces were predomenantly "men only." You see, when the drill sergeant calls him an "orrible little man" a man will accept this without complaint. A man doesn't take this personally and knows the sergeant is just doing his job. Behind his back he may refer to his sergeant in terms which are less than flattering, but he'll accept his authority. In a woman's mind the agenda switches to "getting even" and her spite gland will go into overdrive. There is an obvious solution to this and that is to go back to keeping the sexes apart. The Americans have already started this process and now train male and female recruits separately. In public they tell you that this is some kind of safeguard for women but the real reason is to stem the cost of litigation arising out of false allegations, although they'll never admit this in public. The backlash is now happening and women have only themselves to blame.
Here are two questions to ask a feminist.
1.Can you give me five inventions designed, developed and patented by a woman? Answer: No
2. Can you give me twenty inventions designed, developed and patented by a man? Answer: Easy, every single invention in the world.
The Encyclopedia Britannica have very kindly drawn up a list of great inventions and their inventors which you can see by clicking here. You will notice that the female half our species seem to have contributed very little (bugger all) to this extensive list. So I'd like to recommend that all young men and boys examine the list and the next time you hear some feminist Nazi (feminazi) screeching that men are stupid and useless and how wonderful "wimmin" are you should consult the list. We chaps are safe in the knowledge that we invent things while "wimmin" moan and whinge about how unfair life is to them. It's about time "wimmin" got off their multitasking arses and invented something instead of spending so much time complaining and deriding men! All I say is thank god for men or we'd still be living in caves. I'm writing this on a computer invented by Charles Babbage (man) and I'm multitasking by answering the phone invented by Alexander Graham-Bell (man). Later on I may go out in my diesel powered (Diesel, man) motor car which was invented by Gottlieb Daimler (man). I may at some point go on my hols and fly out to the Costa Packet on a jet invented by Sir Frank Whittle (man). During the flight I may switch on the TV invented by John Logie Baird (man). Whilst on holiday I may pick up my e mail on the Internet which was also invented by a man whose name escapes me but I know I can find out his name in seconds thanks to his invention. I may also read a printed book thanks to William Caxton (man). Oh and the title of the book "Why Men Cannot Multitask" .....yawn.......yawn....yawn. PS. The inventor of the world wide web was Tim Berners-Lee. I didn't know that but I looked it up on the Internet.
Male Power!
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that feminists are not so much pro-women as they are anti-men. They masquerade as spokeswomen for all women including hetero-sexual women (once upon a time referred to as "normal"). In reality these people have a deep seated hatred of all men for no other reason that we are men. They hate us so much that they will stop at nothing to demonise us and that is why they have covertly infiltrated organisations in order to propagate the feminist myth that all women are wonderful and all men are evil. Back in the sixties and seventies the organisations they infiltrated were largely feminist groups and women's refuges. They did this to attract government funding (by false pretences) in order to carry out their guerrilla war against men. Millions of government dollars/pounds later and we now have a society that is sick to its core. Vicious urban myths created by man-haters are now accepted as fact by the public despite their provable inaccuracy. The public are not spiteful...they are just brainwashed by the media..... and who controls the media? Man-haters and their frightened male flunkies. Anyone who argues to get the real truth into the public arena gets death threats (including Bob Geldof).
These femanazis have also infiltrated and corrupted organisations like the NSPCC for the same reasons. To carry out mainstream man-hatred from the safety of a once respectable charity. As you know I've gone covert with my Captain Zarmband blog. I've already had abusive comments left (I've now disabled the comments function). These comments are very revealing about the mindset of those who leave them. They never take part in reasoned debate along the lines of intellectual argument. Oh no...it's just a diatribe of abuse all of which is personal, vindictive and often threatening. A lot of these people are terrorists. After all that's what a terrorist is.....someone who uses violence and/or the threat of violence for political reasons. It's doubtful whether the police would be interested in these terrorist threats. The political correct brigade have put pay to that. So where does it leave us? These people would literally enslave us if they could. That's how much they hate us. You only have to look at their idiotic writings to see that.
I've often wondered why the media love women so much. I've realised over the last few years that it's just down to money. As you know women make 85% of buying decisions. In other words they spend men's money. Hence the media's love of women because the media lives off income generated by the corporations. The corporations are funded by women buying their products with men's money.
The same applies to gay men. I am old enough to remember a time when gay men were social outcasts (wrongly in my opinion). That's changed now and gay men are always represented in a positive light in the media. Why the change? MONEY old chap! Gay men are now the highest earning socio-economic group....the so called "Pink Purse." That's because they usually have two male earners and no kids to support....hence loads of disposable income. The corporations have noticed this too. This is why gay men are always portrayed as style gurus and hetero men are always portrayed as slobs. The media is a whore who sells herself to the highest bidder. Their attitude is "If you spend money with us we'll portray you in a positive light but if you don't spend your money or you allow someone else to spend it for you we'll portray you as an idiotic oaf." We men should take note. The media controls public opinion and public opinion controls and influences politicians who in turn make the laws.......ergo- the media makes laws.
How does this help us?
The answer for men like us is don't marry or allow women to spend your money. If hetero men did this en mass (which is starting to happen) we will end up having our voices heard. Once corporations realise that men are spending their own money they will suddenly like us again as in the case of gay men. Suddenly women will have to earn and spend their own money and if they don't have it the corporations will bid them a fond farewell. We can scream our indignation about life's injustices all we want but no one will listen unless money is at stake....MONEY TALKS! So I urge all men to turn their backs on marriage or living with a woman.
Spend your own money lads.
Spend your own money if you want freedom....it's the only way.
Feminism was originally supposed to be a force to right injustices that were dealt to women by the ruling elite (not men in general, just men in power). However, as with most things the ruling elite noticed that feminism had some areas that could be of use to them (the ruling elite). They exploited this to hold on to and increase their own power. So the paradox is: A movement started by women to combat the injustices brought about by the ruling elite has been manipulated and used by the ruling elite for their own benefit (some of the ruling elite are men, though not all by any means). This is not the same as saying that men are the ruling elite.
I'll give you an example of this: Feminists encouraged women to go out into the workforce in order to be financially independent. The ruling elite use this extra "manpower" (wrong word I know) to create a surplus of workers thus driving down wages. As an added bonus, two wage families drive up the price of housing which results in big mortgages. This is good for the ruling elite because they own land and run the banks and money-lenders who benefit from the extra profit.
If I sound like some kind of "commie" believe me I'm not. I own a business and I'm a company director. But I do know about socio-economics and political chicanery. Feminism has not benefited ordinary working class women although many think it has. They are taught to look back to the pre-feminist era and believe that any improvements in their lives are solely as a result of feminism. They are not; any improvements have been obtained by the working class men and women demanding better rights (together). Look back at how working class men were treated many years ago. Were they living some privileged existence of luxury while their wives were kept in destitution? No they were not, working class men were ruthlessly exploited and abused by big business and periodically forced to fight in wars which killed and maimed them in their millions. This is the privileged patriarchy that feminists constantly refer to. Politicians trawling for easy female votes now use feminism and seek to garner female support by ripping off men and denying us our basic human rights. Many women go along with this thinking (wrongly) that they will benefit from this. Divide and rule is still there for all to see. I ask you this question: Is it in a man's interest that his wife should be poorly paid or treated badly at work? Of course it isn't. Nor is it my desire to see women mistreated or not respected. These issues are red herrings put about by axe to grind feminists (man haters) and power hungry, manipulative politicians. Ordinary people must stick together and not be divided by the manipulators who rule by deceit.
It’s the silly season again folks, the time of the year when politicians seek to increase their own rating in “touchy feelyness”. This year’s topic is the supposed gender pay gap.
The article screeches that poor women are being discriminated against and do not get the same pay as men. But look a little closer dear reader. The article states that women are “forced” to take work which is below their ability level. “Forced” is a strange word to use. I must admit that when the female targeted press gang was in my area I must have been looking the other way as these poor females were grabbed from the street and “forced” into low paid jobs. I suspect that these poor women are not “forced” at all but choose easier work.
“Why would they do such a thing Captain?” I hear you ask.
Well....... let me explain.
The majority of women may well fall into one of the following groups.
Group 1.Married women with a working husband.
In this group it is highly likely that the woman’s hubby earns the lion's share of the family budget. This is because women choose men who earn more than they do when searching for a partner. Women in general do not want a man who earns less than she does. This is her choice not his. A woman in this group has the option of taking a less demanding job because she is not required to earn the bulk of the family budget. This choice is not open to her husband of course. Because her job of choice is less demanding, safer and requires fewer hours commitment it is, by definition, less well paid. Her choice of employment will not be a dirty or dangerous occupation which women avoid like the plague. That’s why 19 out of 20 people killed in the workplace are men. It will also be a job which requires fewer hours to be worked per week. Men work on average 20% longer working weeks than women in the UK.
Group 2. Women dependent on state benefits.
This is a large group of women and it is growing fast. Women in this group receive large payments from the state as well as free housing and other incentives. There is little point in a woman from this group taking risky, demanding, long working hours jobs because ultimately she’ll be no better off as her state benefits will be reduced pro rata. The result is that they choose easier, less demanding, safe and jobs with a shorter working week and are therefore lower paid. They also will tend to work “cash in hand” as this will not reduce her state benefits and freebies. These are the real reasons for the supposed gender gap in wages.
To recap:
1. Men do the dangerous, dirty and demanding jobs that women don’t want.
2. Men work longer hours than women (on average 20% more hours per week. One in four men work more than 50 hours a week!).
3. Women choose easier work because it suits them.
4. Women are often supported by a man who earns the lion’s share of the family budget so that the woman can choose an easier job because it suits her.
Like most things that politicians say there is usually a hidden agenda. One of the biggest problems faced by the Blair government is the spiralling cost of benefits paid to single mothers and married women who receive top ups through the Tax Credit system. There exists a huge incentive to get women to take more demanding, better paid jobs as this will reduce the burden to the Treasury. The real situation is largely the result of women’s own choices and their unwillingness to go for higher paid, more demanding work that requires more commitment and more hours per week. Of course, politicians have an eleventh commandment which is “Thou shalt not criticise women.” Therefore, it is necessary to push the blame elsewhere and so Gordon Brown is set to announce a new project to deal with the imaginary problem without blaming women in any way, shape or form.
This is political chicanery of the highest order.
If you want to know why women earn less than men it's because they have choices that men do not have and it suits women that the situation is as it is. This is not about discrimination it's about voluntary choices. The report says that women earn on average 17% less than men in full time work. How was this figure arrived at? Presumably by calculating the gross weekly pay of men compared to women. But as we've already seen men work on average 20% more hours per week than women. One in four men in Britain work more than fifty hours a week (this is illegal in most of the EU but not in the UK because Blair used his opt out for this European legislation). So the fact that men earn more per week is hardly surprising is it? And this does not take account of the fact that women keep more of their money due to the fact that the tax burden falls more heavily on men because women are given all the tax credits.
Think about this.
According to the Treasury men account for 79% of income tax paid in the UK. This is because women get all a working couples tax breaks and benefits and men work longer hours in more difficult jobs. Many women choose to work part time or not at all. These are choices not open to men. The real problem here is that men are working excessive hours but Gordon Brown and "Phoney" Blair are not concerned about this. There will be no government programmes to deal with this problem nor will the Equal Opportunites Commission undertake an in depth study. Oh no, men will just have to put up with it while these people study and address imaginary problems supposedly experienced by women.
And one last thought. Retailers and advertisers tell us that women make at least 80% of buying choices, so it appears that regardless of who's earned it in the first place women end up spending the money anyway.
Government and big corporations have created a society where men work and then hand over their money for women to spend. Traditionally men have always done this but recently the government has acted as a third party to control this process. The money is either removed from men's pack packets as tax and then redistributed to single mothers or done via the courts and the CSA following divorce. The outcome is the same, women end up controlling men's money.
The politicians like this because it gives them extra power and influence and it makes men controllable and women dependent on government. For politicians this is a double bonus. Corporations strive to have the purse strings controlled by females because women will pay £100 for a bottle of smelly water so long as it has the word perfume on the label. Men will not do this. Therefore, corporations want men to do the work and then hand over their cash for women to spend on luxuries at inflated prices which means lots of profit for big corporations. Women are easily manipulated by the media and advertisers into buying profit-laden products for non-existent problems. "You must have this new cream or you'll look old and/or fat." Or "Buy this product to make you feel confident." Or "Buy this because you're worth it." These adverts are never aimed at men, they are always for female consumption.
They always work on one of two levels.
1. Buy this product to stop something terrible happening to you (usually related to attractiveness).
2. Buy this product because it will make you feel good about yourself (the word confident is usually mentioned).
Feminism has been exploited by big business and power hungry politicians for their own ends. In reality these two groups have no genuine concern about women except that they can use women's gullibility and self-obsessed minds for their own ends. There is evidence that government organisations are monitoring men's rights activists, indeed, I should be stunned if they were not. We certainly know that they have watched and monitored Fathers 4 Justice as they became a thorn in the governments side. They will also be monitoring in case some desperate men resort to non-lawful activities. I'm surprised that this has not already happened as all it takes is one man who's lost his kids and everything else to go over the edge (god forbid). I urge all men's rights activists to stay firmly within the law and remain peaceful. The security services monitor anything that could develop and turn ugly, they also make sure that the "Status Quo" (not the rock group) is preserved. Obviously the security people have plenty to do with potential threats from Middle-Eastern terror groups but be assured that they will also be watching anyone who brings men's rights issues into public awareness. For proof of this you need only look at the kind of people who they monitored a few years ago. Virtually anyone in the public eye had a file, even members of political parties or trades union officials. This is now a matter of public record. It is highly likely that the security agencies are currently keeping more members of the public under scrutiny because these days it's a lot easier and we have a government which is obsessed with snooping.
On a brighter note it could be that government and corporations will soon realise that men are spending their own money because we are no longer getting married. When this happens they will drop the women's issues BS and suddenly become interested in men's rights. These people have no interests other than power and money and if they realise that they can get these by being "men's rights friendly" they'll ditch feminism quicker than you can say "Germain Greer." After all, why did women get the vote? Not because they went on hunger strike or chained themselves to railings but because they became useful to the ruling elite by doing men's work during the First World War. The ruling elite suddenly realised that they would need female workers to replace the men who had died and been maimed and they realised that they would benefit from these women's votes. There is another precedent for this and that is the experience of gay men. Forty years ago gay men were locked in prison now they are always portrayed as style gurus in the media and politicians fall over themselves to get "gay friendly" legislation into law.
Why the change? Money!
Gay men are one of the highest socio-economic groups in western economies, the so called "Pink Pound". This is because they usually have two male incomes and no kids or divorce, therefore they have lots of spare cash. "Eternal Bachelors" of the none gay variety are also in this position and don't think that politicians and big business have not noticed this. As more and more men stay bachelors for life they will become very wealthy and therefore economically and politically powerful.
**********************
Sponsored Ads