Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - The Gonzman

Main / For Thomas - B.S. Repellent
Sep 08, 2004, 08:25 PM
Quote from: "Thomas"
mr niceguy has shown himself to be a troll with no desire to engage in constructive discussion. Because of that, I will not respond to him. If any reasonable person would like to raise questions or points similar to those brought up by mr niceguy, I would be happy to respond.

Well, let's just address the usual and oft repeated disinformation since the cycle is coming around that they rear their ugly heads, shall we?

1) The Men's Movement is a hate movement.

The classic lie.  A nice broad brush, slapped on liberally to avoid thinking.  MRA's do not hate women, they hate marriage - or more accurately, they hate divorce.

2) MRA's want to discriminate against women

False.  MRA's want freedom to associate, and if they choose to avoid relationships with women, it is their God-Given right to do so.

3) MRA's want to roll back women's rights.

False.  MRA's want to roll back special rights and be granted equal standing under the law.  Nowhere will you find any serious advocacy of suspension of civil rights for women.

4) MRA's Hate marriage.

Half-truth - so, therefore, a lie.  MRA's do not believe that Marriage, as it stands, is an equal partnership under the law, nor do they believe they have equal standing or can get a fair shake from Domestic Courts.

5) MRA's want to be able to (rape, beat, victimize) women with impunity.

Damnable lie.  MRA's do not want to rape women, nor do they support real rapists.  Prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a man is a rapist, and chances are you will find an MRA eager to revoke his testicles - but we do not believe an accusation is as good as a conviction, it has been demonstrated beyond refutation that some women DO lie about this, and we reject the Feminist star chamber that has been created around rape hysteria.

It is the same thing with Domestic Violence.  Those accused are innocent until PROVEN guilty.  The accused has a right to a defense, and against self-incrimination.  They have a right of redress if falsely accused.  False accusers should be prosecuted under felony statutes, and it should be prima facie evidence as to unfitness as a parent.

6) MRA's are anti-child.

Laughably false.  The biggest source of pain for MRA's are the loss of their relationship with their offspring.  This doesn't even rise to the level of credible.

MRA's are against women using children as prizes, weapons, and a ticket for a free ride for the rest of their life.  MRA's are against paternal fraud, and entrapmet of men.  MRA's want due process, and they want a rebuttabel - I say again REBUTTABLE presumtion of joint custody, so that they may be a meaningful part of their children's lives.

7) MRA's want to control women's bodies.

False.  Again, they want the same rights under the law - if a woman can pass on motherhood, a man should be able to pass on fatherhood.  A man should have first right of refusal in case of an adoption being profferred by the mother.  We are eager for the day of the male pill, where a man can exercise discreet and personal choice about reproduction without having to ask permission or discuss it with his partner - JUST LIKE A WOMAN CAN.  MRA's just want women to be disempowered from using their bodies to control men.
Could it be that it might be that women are contributing to the problem?
Main / We never learn
Sep 03, 2004, 01:46 PM
Obviously Gonzo is testy.  Here's why.

Once again, I've had to sit by and watch another man stupidly self destruct.

It seems that cupcake is, in all likelihood, having an affair.  All the signs are there.  She goes out alone, before he comes home, and comes home all dolled up; she is hiding her cell phone bill - hell, why am I reciting the litany to you all? You know the drill as well as me. Sorry.


Cupcake has been cold, short, distant, and snotty; nagging, refusing to be mollified or pleased, and hyper-critical of everything.  So I says to him, "Tom,(not real name) she's trying to push your buttons.  Don't lose your temper.  And don't move out."

Yeah, Gonz.  I know.  Don't worry.  I know what I am doing.  I've got me under control.  Yeah.  I know what my priorities are.

Tuesday, Tom comes home.  Cupcake isn't home.  She has left two matchbooks from a local motel around.  He calls there and asks for her.  No such registered.  So he asks for the room of the guy he thinks she is fooling around with.  He is registered. His room is rung.  He hears her voice in the background.

Can you say set up and played for a sucker?  Can you say "Wanted to be discovered?"  I knew you could.

Tom goes berserk.  He goes to the garage, smashes her car to bits with a baseball bat, pisses on her clothes in her closet, loads up his truck, and leaves; worse yet, he writes a incoherent note cussing her up one side and down the other, and doesn't pick his kid up from football practice.

Guess what?  You bet.  Wednesday morning, Cupcake gets a restraining order and police report on him.  He calls that afternoon.  I found this out when I went to get him out of jail yesterday where he has been arrested for  - Guess What? - violating a restraining order.


Will we ever learn not to roll over and play dead on command when the buttons get pushed?  No, I'm not blaming the victim.  She's a perfect bitch and slut for what she did.  In all likelihood, objectively, she deserved to have her Miata smashed, and her clothes pissed on.  But his reaction was stupid - same as the raped woman who immediately takes a shower.
Main / Veteran of the Pennsic Wars
Aug 24, 2004, 03:51 PM
I have just returned this weekend from 10 days at the event known as Pennsic War. This was the 33rd such event, held at Cooper's Lake Campground, and sponsored by the Society for Creative Anachronism.

For those of you who know what the SCA is, yes, your Uncle Gonz is a SCA geek, whose persona is a 5th Century Dal Riadan Scot. You may come and laugh at me and my greatsword anytime you wish a finely applied set of bruises. For those of you who do not, the SCA is a grioup that recreates life in the middle ages.

The main attraction of Pennsic, as it is known, are 5 days of battles between the Kingdom of the East, and the Middle Kingdom, with almost every one of the remaining 16 kingdoms lining up as allies. Literally thousands dress in armor of the period, and line up on opposing sides using weapons constructed of rattan. AT the sound of the cannon, the lines surge forward, and grown men commence to clubbing each other like baby harp seals.

Abso-damn-lutely glorious. It is the ultimate testosterone fest, and the Super Bowl of the Medieval Re-enactor. Even non SCA groups come to take part, including Markland and the Tuchux, among others.

Ah, to fight as real men fought, mano y mano, and strip away the veneer, if only for a moment. To stride the field of battle like a Celtic War God; to slay one's enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. This is nothing less than a week in Valhalla, fighting all day and carousing all night, and in my opinion is the cure for what ails you.

Others mileage may vary. Since I am a large man, with no small amount of martial training, I am well suited to this style of physical competition, much to the chagrin of those who tend to bounce off of me as I charge a bridge with the battlelust raging.

Many Feminuts, I am sure, will dismiss this as more evidence of "boys playing" and male violence. Bah. Madam, you are clueless. It's not even worth my time to enumerate the ways.

Men - this is the way for you to get in touch with your inner Klingon. Honor. Valor. Deeds. All those things which are sneered at and denigrated by the Pink Militants.

Gods above, but what a rush. It gets better every year. Ancient, fierce, and free. This is what it is to be a man.
Main / Vacation
Aug 13, 2004, 12:17 PM
Well, lest anyone believe the Old Gonzmeister has skyed off again, as of this evening I am heading off to one of the biggest testoterone-fests in the world.

That's right.  Pennsic War.  A medieval re-enactor event where 4,000 men get on a battlefield in armor, with rattan wasters, and beat the snot out of each other for days on end in recreations of medieval combat.  Fight all day.  Carouse all night.

Ah.  It's like spending a week and a half in Valhalla.

Come Wednesday evening, at about 9:30 p.m. EST I will dump a horn of mead upon the battlefield as a toast and salute to friends who aren't there..  Ya'll know who you are.

It'll be good for the soul.  May your Gods help you commie and feminazi rat-bastards when I get back refreshed and with the old attitude back.  Just give your soul to Jesus.  Your ass will belong to me. :-D (See, it's working already.)

Heh.  :twisted:

See you all in a week and a half
Well, the resident Stealth Feminazi over at another board has thrown down the gauntlet, claiming that men don't support enforcing statutory rape laws against women who have sex with minor males.

So - what say ya'll?
Main / Claire's House is Next
Jan 19, 2004, 06:35 PM
Operation Claire's commences!

My Letter:

To the Management of Claire's;

As a father of girls (and a young man) and the uncle of many nieces, I have spent much money in your stores. I come to you tonight having returned merchandise totaling over $90, which was to be gifts for my Niece's birthday, and notifying you that you will never again receive a plug nickel of my money until you remove the filth that is David and Goliath t-shirts from your shelves. And you come to your senses by this weekend, my last valuable shopping day, and I might spend my money again

I would be willing to wager that if anyone were to display such shirts that had girl-bashing incitements to violence and degradation on them, and ask you to carry them in your stores, you would recoil like a vampire faced with garlic and a crucifix. How you can in conscience display such garbage and claim to love your sons is frankly baffling to me.

As if this wasn't bad enough, this company also produces t-shirts which are blatantly racist in nature, and example of which is here at click here . I am sure, once I get finished plastering this all over the internet, you will be receiving many other letters from other sources questioning your judgement in carrying this offensive, sexist, misandrist, and racist product line.

Finally, as an internet columnist featured at Men's News Daily, I will be joining Glenn Sacks in his campaign against this trash; I promise that not a day will pass without it being mentioned prominently in my column or on my internationally linked Blog. It remains to be seen, based on your decision, whether Claire's will be mentioned as a friend of decency, or as a partner who is aiding and abetting the purveyors of violence, smut, hatred, and racism.


Peter S. Jensen

D&G's Racism

Where's Your Letter?
Main / The MRA Agenda
Jan 04, 2004, 02:22 PM
Posted elsewhere, but let's post it here too, and expand on it.

What do MRA's Want to Achieve:

Okay, here's what we are after

1 - Rebuttable presumption of Joint Custody in divorce; enforcement of visitation with the same zeal as child support

As it stands now, custody of a child is seen as a prize and token which brings a check once a month, week, or whatever.  To correct this, for the good of the child, such parents should realize that their child comes first, and their grabass, careers, and life come second until that child is grown.  This means overnights, pick-ups and drop offs, a common fund for medical expenses et al, with accountability built into it.

Move-Away parents should have a rebuttable presumption of waiving their joint custody rights.

Custodial interference should be considered prima facie evidence as unfitness in a parent, and severe cases should be treated as child abuse.

Note that these presumptions are rebuttable, but such things should require a conviction for criminal behavior such as drug offenses, molestation, abuse, etc.

2 - Restoring the burden of proof to the state in accusations of sex crimes

As it stands now Rape Shield laws often prevent men from presenting evidence of past false allegations, and subject them to trial in the press beforehand.  An accusation is many times considered as good as a conviction.  

3 - Elimination of Affirmitive Action for a majority demographic

This is self explanatory.  Women are 52% of the population, and control in the neighborhood of 70% of the money.  If they aren't electing and hiring themselves, it's hardly discrimination.

4 - A return of fault based divorce, and reform of no-fault divorce

Marriage is not only a contract, and shoiuld be treated as such.  It's too easy to get into and get out of.  Both of these should change.  While we probably can't eliminate no-fault divorce, it should not be rewarded, and those wishing to walk out of a marriage without demonstrating good reason (Abuse, infidelity, and so on) should not be rewarded.  Take your clothes, a car, waive your presumption of joint custody, and have a good life.

5 - Elimination of ex-parte restraining orders without due process in domestic cases

Such a thing should raise a red flag.  Due process should be followed, and if an allegation is found to be false, the prosecutor should have no discretion in declining to file charges.

6 - Elimination of Alimony

This is the 21st Century.  Women have been able to get an education and work for years on end.  They should do so.  Fault divorce will take care of abandonment issues, for anyone man or woman who failed to plan ahead, well, stupid is supposed to hurt.

7 - Action to eliminate paternity fraud, and criminal sanctions for the perpetrators of it

Best way to do this would be to require a DNA test at birth, no discretion.  This eliminates the "You don't trust me" factor.  No DNA - No Paternity - No Child support.

8 - Equal spending on issues of Men's health, domestic violence against men, and Men's Commissions; OR, elimination of such gender based programs at all

Self explanatory.I prefer the latter

9 - Repeal of Title IX if reform of it cannot be achieved

Evidence of deliberate bias should be the standard for a Title IX action.  No smoking gun, no case.  The quota system in place is abominable, and should be abolished.

10 - Stop drugging our sons for acting like Boys

I'd personally like to hang every quack who has ever doped a boy up, but that is just me.

11 - Sexual Harassment Reform

I only know that the "reasonable woman" standard as applied is patently unreasonable.  While nobody should have to be subject to groping, touching, or the giving of sexual favors to achieve a promotion or keep their job, it has gone way too far.
Main / Sacre Bleu! I've been TRANSLATED!
Dec 30, 2003, 06:20 PM
Hmmmm.  Masculist Thug, International, maybe....?  My thanks to Gerard.

Confessions d'une « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE»

Le 24 décembre, 2003

par Peter Jensen

En me levant ce matin, je me suis dit : « Mon vieux! Qu'est ce que tu peux faire aujourd'hui pour tyranniser les femmes? » C'est ce qu'on ne demande, à nous les hommes, lors des réunions de la « CONSPIRATION POUR L'OPPRESSION MASCULINISTE » ou celles du « CARTEL DU SPERME  ». Je ne manque JAMAIS une réunion.

C'est donc une question que je me pose tous les matins, même avant d'avaler mes quatre tasses quotidiennes de testostérone. Notez bien : je ne suis pas une femellette; je bois ma testostérone à sec, sans sucre ni crème, ou succédanés « fofolles » tels que les « Noisettes » ou la « Crème irlandaise. » Il faut être un homme que diable! Il fut un temps où on les prenait par aiguille rouillée. Où le monde s'en va-t-il?

Que faire avec les femmes? Leur refuser le droit de vote? Non! trop à la mode. Les forcer à se couvrir tout le corps de longues bâches informes? Non! démodé et surexploité à en mourir. Pauvre de moi! Il est devenu si difficile d'être un oppresseur patriarcal occidental de nos jours. Après une longue journée à manier le fouet de l'asservisseur, je soupire en passant ma chemise de batteur de femme.

Après m'être gavé de rage et d'agressivité nues, j'ai pensé prendre une journée de repos calme pour aller assassiner une pauvre créature des bois sans défense dans une rage masculine assoiffée de sang. Je finirais ma journée avec une bacchanale sauvage et païenne, puis une orgie. L'ennui, c'est que si vous faites ça trop souvent, cela devient vite vieux jeu. Peut être est-ce moi qui devient vieux? Je ne suis finalement parvenu qu'à souiller huit vierges innocentes. Ce n'est plus comme dans le temps où on pouvait aller saquer et brûler toute une ville parce que l'on était mécontent de sa coupe de cheveux, et que l'on n'arrivait pas à trouver le répréhensible coiffeur. Simplement l'idée d'avoir à former des « débutants », vierges de toute connaissance du pillage et du saccage ... me rend las!

J'ai donc enfilé mes bottes militaires et, avant de partir, j'ai vérifié mon arsenal d'oppresseur patriarcal. Pistolet caché? Présent! Coup de poing américain? Présent! Magasines pornos? Présent! Tout étant dans l'ordre, je suis sorti de chez moi. J'ai alors entendu le son d'une gifle sur une peau. Mon voisin criait « Je te l'ai déjà dit ...DEUX FOIS!

Aaahhhhh! Ce serait donc une belle journée.

À entendre certaines femmes, vous penseriez que c'est là mon horaire quotidien. À écouter certaines harpies féministes (de tous sexes) hurlant un torrent de médisances envers les « activistes des droits des hommes », les « masculinistes » ou les « homministes », on reste surpris que les femmes ne sont pas chassées et abattues dans la rue. De nombreuses fois j'ai constaté que Dieu n'avait accordé aux féministes des attributs physiques que pour qu'elles ne se voient affublées d'une prime : « Recherchée : morte ou vive ! » Le mot « paranoïaque » parvient très, très mal à décrire leur attitude mentale.

Je n'ai jamais entendu un de ces esprits bénis (par la Déesse) présenter un corpus doctrinal cohérent qui nous aiderait nous hommes, à vivre nos vies. Elles sont mêmes incapables de s'entendre sur un terme pour nous décrire. J'aime bien l'insulte qu'une ma lancée l'autre jour. « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE. » Cela à de la saveur. Cela roule dans la bouche. C'est coloré. Cela a du caractère. C'est quelque chose que je voudrais mettre en lettres minuscules, blanches sur T-shirt noir. (À propos : 2XL-XT; juste au cas)

Décrire d'hypothétiques « Initiés masculins » comme une organisation monolithique, conspirant tels les « Gnomes de Zurich », cherchant à dominer le monde est d'un ridicule à se tordre de rire. J'imagine des groupes d'hommes se réunissant dans des cavernes secrètes, habillés de longues robes blanches, chantant des prières à un DIEU masculin innommable, avec poignées de main secrètes, et mots de code. À s'en taper les cuisses.

Ce qui alimente de telles fantasmagories paranoïaques est que de plus en plus d'hommes choisissent de vivre une « Vie masculine », un style de vie éclairée où les hommes ne gaspillent pas un seul moment à rechercher l'admiration ou l'approbation des femmes. Un tel homme n'a pas besoin de l'authentification des femmes pour vivre sa masculinité. Il la définit de lui même. Il crée ses propres règles du jeu; si cela veut dire qu'il ne « réussit » pas ce soir, cela importe peu. Sa devise est « ma façon, ou d'aucune façon ». Il refuse de jouer des jeux, et encore moins le « GRAND » jeu (de la séduction).

Ceci rend les féministes de service, les féministes sournoises, ivres de rage. Ce ne sont pas de vraies féministes. Il est vrai qu'elles agissent comme des féministes; vous n'avez qu'à leur demander.  Mais ce sont des femmes qui babillent inlassablement sur l'égalité, sur l'équité, etc., etc. Mais dès que cela risque de leur coûter un caprice, elles se transforment en mégères hurlantes. Soudainement, vous devenez un homme exécrable, monstrueux, anti-femme, anti-famille, anti-enfant, et toute la litanie habituelle des calomnies féministes. De telles femmes se sentent autorisées à jouir de tous droits et privilèges : elles ont droit à une carrière, droit à une famille, droit à un mari, droit à des enfants. Et si vous étiez un « VRAI » homme, vous accepteriez votre sort dans la vie, vous leur donneriez ce à quoi elles ont « droit ». Comment? Vous OSEZ affirmer que la vie est un processus de concessions mutuellement bénéfiques. Espèce ... d'HOMINISTE misogyne! Vous êtes odieux, répugnant, anti-femme, anti-famille, anti-enfant ...

Hé, la femme. Un bon conseil : « Ta gueule !»

Naturellement, ceci met aussi en rogne les vrais féministes. Celles-ci sont tellement misandres qu'elles voient le lever du soleil comme un symbole de l'oppression phallocrate mâle. Elles se sentent gênées lorsque le vent les pousse; que moi, un «  MÂLE », respire le même air qu'elles, leur fait piquer des crises de colère incontrôlable. Généralement, je ne me laisse pas suer par ces mégères.

Je disais donc une « vie masculine ». Une vie où un homme n'occupe pas toutes les minutes de sa journée à penser à plaire aux femmes. Il n'a pas besoin de l'approbation des femmes pour être un homme. Il ne cherche pas à inscrire le sceau « APROUVÉE PAR UNE FEMME » sur sa masculinité. Lorsque ce sceau lui est donné, il est porté, mais sans quelconque fierté. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'il déteste les femmes, ou qu'elles lui sont indifférentes. Cela veut dire qu'il détermine de lui seul la valeur de leur sanction.

Lorsque j'entends les femmes ânonner la formule mystique: « Pete, ce que les femmes veulent ... », je rétorque « Mais on se fout de ce que veulent les femmes? ». C'est à ce moment là que je deviens une « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE». C'est pourtant un credo simple. Être une femme est une bonne et excellente chose. Cela et une piastre vous donne droit à un café. Mais le simple fait d'être équipée de plomberie féminine est insuffisant à justifier un quelconque traitement préférentiel. Vous voulez du chevaleresque, du romantique, du « Prince Charmantesque », et tout le « tra la la »? Deux mots : GA-GNEZ LES!

Nous en sommes à la troisième génération de féministes. Elles auront bientôt l'âge de l'université et elles ont toujours été traitées comme des aristocrates. Elles se sont fait répétées « ad nauseam » qu'un jour leur Prince Charmant viendrait sur son destrier blanc, les captiverait d'un coup de foudre, les ravirait toute la nuit comme une brute, et que le matin venu elles enfileraient leur « costume de professionnelle » pour partager avec lui la souveraineté sur son royaume. Elles ont droit à TOUT: l'antique autorité de maîtresse du foyer, ainsi que les services gratuits d'un nègre mâle qui travaille toute la journée dans les mines de sel, et qui, le soir venu, prend le rôle de bonne à tout faire pour assumer « SA » moitié des tâches ménagères, pour finir en lui faisant l'amour comme un déchaîné pendant toute la nuit. De leur perspective, tout ceci n'est que leur « droit de naissance », tel que décrété par la DÉESSE. Un homme qui conteste ce droit des femmes n'est qu'une racaille diabolique.

Elles piquent des crises rageuses lorsque les hommes de leur génération refusent de jouer « leur » rôle. Ces mâles ont appris que peu importe ce qu'ils font, lorsque quelque chose ne fonctionne pas, même si elle se trouve près du point zéro d'une explosion nucléaire, la fille les tiendra responsables. Ils ont grandi avec de rares contacts avec leur père; ils ont vu le vieux se faire violer à la cour du divorce. Ils ont vu leurs frères, leurs oncles, et les pères de leurs amis subir le même sort. À l'âge où ils jouaient avec des camions, leur mère recevait ses amies dans la pièce d'à coté et ils pouvaient apprendre ce que les femmes pensent vraiment des hommes lorsque celles-ci s'enflammaient dans des orgies de médisances sur le salaud d'ex-mari. Ils ont entendu de leurs propres oreilles que la pension alimentaire est là plus pour faire « payer le bâtard », que pour faire vivre les enfants. Une liste interminable de jérémiades féminines. En bref, il a déjà lu le manuscrit. Il n'a PAS besoin de voir la pièce.

Ce qui, naturellement, fait de lui un autre mâle qui a « peur de s'engager », un grand adolescent, irresponsable et misogyne. C'est un homme; donc naturellement il a tort.  Hélas, pour les jeunes femmes, ce genre d'insultes super-exploitées n'ont plus aucun effet.

C'est ça, une « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE». Il fait les choses à sa façon. Si cela ne satisfait pas la « FEMME OCCIDENTALE  », si cela ne correspond pas à son plan de vie, elle doit se ressaisir d'elle-même. C'est cela qui fait de moi une « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE». Je ne suis pas sur la terre pour combler les femmes, ni à trimer pour que « leurs » vies baignent dans l'huile. Lorsque je dis que, la plupart du temps, l'idée de satisfaire ou non une femme ne me vient pas à l'esprit (mettre les Féminazies en rogne est une autre affaire : c'est là un des grands plaisirs de la vie) et si je le fais ce n'est que de façon fortuite, les femmes en reste ... bouche bée. Lorsque j'affirme que c'est un droit fondamental de l'homme que d'éviter le piège matrimonial, ou de se faire vasectomiser, je me fais sévèrement critiqué. Lorsque je dis aux cohortes de jeunes filles aigries que dans quinze ou vingt ans la valeur de ce qu'elles ont à offrir chutera de façon vertigineuse, alors que ma propre valeur à moi ne peut qu'aller à la hausse, je suis houspillé. Brandissez vos crucifix! Pete le maléfique est en liberté!

Mais oui, bébé, c'est là la dure réalité biologique. Le jeune féministe typique a grandi dans un monde de droits acquis et de privilèges féminins. Elle a toujours considéré comme trop assommant d'acquérir de bonnes manières, une conversation polie, la capacité de converser sur des sujets d'importance, ou même la patience nécessaire à être une compagne agréable. Pauvres elles, elles furent nourries à la petite cuillère de « bouillie pour féministes ». On leur a enseigné que tous les hommes ne sont que des cochons stupides, facilement manipulés par le mirage du plaisir sexuel. Elles croient aussi que dans les rapports sexuels, il ne leur suffit que de se présenter, et de s'étendre. A vrai dire, elles baisent comme des pieds.

Dans vingt ans, leurs ovaires se seront asséchés, et il ne leur restera que leur sexualité à offrir. Les hommes de leur âge seront toujours virils et d'encore meilleurs « bons partis ». Ils seront prêts à être pères, et à fonder une famille (avec une plus jeune et non-féministe). Et les ex-jeunes féministes?  Elles seront toujours aussi minables au pieu.

Vaut mieux adopter le lit comme hobby, bébé! Trente ans cela peut être effroyablement long. Je sais, je sais, vous n'avez pas à me le répéter, je suis une « CANAILLE MASCULINISTE».

Il ne me reste qu'a trouver quelqu'un pour imprimer ces fichus T-shirts.

Peter Jensen

[email protected]

Peter Jensen est mâle acariatre et ingénieur en informatique. Il vit dans la contrée sauvage de l'Indiana méridional. Il prend grand plaisir à satiriser la « correctitude politique », et à railler ses championnes. Si vous voulez lui écrire et pour jaser convenablement, il vous recevra volontiers. Si vous voulez lui écrire, rage idéologique à la gueule, il vous fera également bon accueil; vous serez ainsi eau à son moulin. Vous saurez qu'il ne considèrera pas vos communications comme privées. En effet, vous pourriez finir tournés en dérision par son esprit asséchant et par sa critique aigue devant des millions ... d'internautes. »
Voir :

Traduit par Gérard Pierre Levesque
Gérard Pierre LEVESQUE

Directeur de la traduction
Point d'aide Japon

Les livres masculinistes les plus importants
   Daniel AMNEUS
Main / Good Post From
Dec 30, 2003, 06:00 PM
Save these familiar euphemisms you'll hear in "Family Court" to your file:

Petitioner - Mother,
Respondent - Father,
Plaintiff - Mother,
Defendant - Father,
Obligee - Mother,
Obligor - Father,
Judgment Creditor - Mother,
Judgment Debtor - Father,
CP - Mother,
NCP - Father,
Agreed to pay - Ordered to pay,
Willfully ignored his obligation - He is unemployed,
Has the ability to pay - We assume he must have assets,
Your arguments are not well founded - You're the father, stop trying to get fairness,
We are obligated to give you annual notice - This is the only due process notification you'll see,
It's for the children - Your ex-wife gets the money,
Mandatory Mediation - Mediated agreements only apply to fathers,
Imputed Incomes - Father higher than actual, mother lower than actual,
Address of Record - Where we'll serve you with legal notices,
IV-D Services - Mothers only need apply,
Former Family - Your ex-wife and children,
Private Attorneys - What fathers need,
Federal Registry and New Hire Directory - How we track down fathers,
Wage Withholding - We don't trust you to pay on your own,
Arrearage Garnishment - Our records are screwed up,
Grievance Procedure - How fathers can complain, but we don't care,
Consent Decree - We got caught screwing fathers,
CS Guidelines - Payment schedule for fathers,
Guideline Reviews - We've already made up our mind, but take a chance anyway,
Privacy Safeguards - Your ex is hiding your children from you,
Federal Legislation - We only screw you because the feds say we have to,
Assignment of Support - You ex is on welfare,
Support Enforcement Division - Nothing here for fathers,
Department of Human Resources - Nothing here for fathers either,
District Attorney - Not a father's friend, beware,
Presumption of Inability to Pay - Mothers on welfare never pay, they just collect benefits,
Reasonable and seasonal visitation - Whatever your ex-wife says you can have,
Modification - You earn more now so we're increasing the CS,
Change of Circumstance - What you consider as significant really isn't,
CS Accounting Unit - Where we launder the money to collect our federal bonus checks
Main / For Exactamundo
Dec 29, 2003, 10:04 PM
So why do we worry about it?

Okay.  I've got both a son and a daughter.  I will personally maim the sonofabitch that makes my little girl cry.  She's a good kid, works hard in school, and doesn't deserve to be held back because of her gender.  It would be a crime for her kids (when and if they come) - my grandchildren - to be taken from her by a court biased against her because of her gender.  She doesn't derserve to be mocked, ridiculed, or harassed.  I don't want to see her over in a war zone, or God Forbid, hauled back in a body bag.  I don't want to see her living a life of quiet desperation because someone else has imposed their vision of how her life should be lived on her.

The thing that makes me a Men's Right's Activist is that I don't want that for my son either.

I'm not active for my little girl, not because I love her less - but because I don't have to be.

My girl won't want for a college education.  She gets good grades, has scads of "Women's" Scholarships available, and will have many of her scores for entry into programs "gender normed."  My son doesn't have this.

My Girl doesn't have to worry about being held back or denied a job because of her gender - her biggest worry is being taken seriously as something besides the token pair of tits.  Employers will get tax breaks for hiring her, a minority.  She can attract good PR as an "Affirmative Action" success story.  Men will think twice before firing her, and make sure that they cross all the T's and dot all the I's.  Because a sex discrimination suit is better safe than sorry.  My son, sad to say, will probably suffer i9n his chances, be downsized first, and will never have any discrimination claims taken seriously.

In a great many places my little girl by law can't be a sex criminal because she's female.  If she was, she could still have custody and recieve child support if she had an affair with an underage boy.  In Texas, she can murder her husband, and still retain custody of her Children.  In South Carolina, and Texas, Death Row Capital of the USA, she could kill her kids and never be on death row.  If my son is so much as accused, he'll be lucky to have bail assigned, let alone make it until he proves himself innocent.

My daughter, if she marries a man, and the marriage goes south, will never want for a house, money, utilities, and many of the necessities of life.  The state will make sure her husband provide s it for her, or write a check herself.  My son, on the other hand, faces quite a different case.  He could build his house by hand, and still lose it.

I'll always see my daughter's children.  If she gets divorced, she'll likely keep them.  My son, on the other hand, will have no more right to his children than mom allows him to have if he gets in such a situation - and I'll only be as lucky as he is.

My little girl will never see a war zone unless she puts herself there.  My son is signed up for the draft.  I don't pray for her, because I don't need to.

The list goes on.

I worry and hope that I have done my job enough so that my daughter doesn't take the easy way out that the system allows her.  Even so, she will have choices undreamed of.  To be a mother and wife, or not.

If my son isn't a father and husband, he'll be a shitheel, a misogynist who is afraid of women, and a hater of marriage, family, and children.

My Daughter can choose to work or not.  If my son doesn't get a job, he'll be considered a lazy and worthless bastard.

If my daughter were to get pregnant, and decide a baby and motherhood isn't something she is ready for, she doesn't have to.  My son has no such choice if his girlfriend turns up pregnant.

And the list could go on.

That's why I'm a men's rights activist.  Not because I hate my daughter, but because I love my son too.
Main / Let's Run Some Numbers
Dec 28, 2003, 06:05 AM
Okay, the AMBER!(tm) has decided to rear her.. head again, and post some of her usual drivel on How MRA's hate women and familes and children because we hate marriage.

Rather than try to convince her, because, as one person's tagline says you can hardly reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into to begin with, let's run a few numbers and ask a question.  Hang on for the question

55% of marriages these days end in divorce.  There's 55%

70% of all marriages are initiated by the woman.  There's 55 x .70, or 38.5%  Perfect point-five rounds down, so... 38%

90% of all divorces will wind up with the woman getting the infrastructure (House, car, the man getting stuck with the bills, the kids, child support, and in many states maintainence).  So, 90% of 38% is, um, 38 x .90, let's see ... 34.2%.  Let's be fair.  Round down. 34%.

Let's put some icing on the cake.  30%, at last estimate, of all children have a different father than the one named on the birth certificate.  34 x .3 = 10.2, round down 10%.

So, the breakdown is, with a few things thrown in for perspective's sake, the odds on what will happen to a man if he gets married is:

    1 - To be divorced:
2- To be divorced aginst your will: 38%
3 - To wind up stuck with the bills, and lose your children and home: 34%
4 - To die while playing Russian Roullette: 16-17%
5 - To pay as in (3) above, for a child that isn't yours: 10%
6 - Chances of developing fatal lung cancer from smoking: .75%
7 - To catch cancer from cyclamates, banned by the FDA in the USA: <.05%[/list]

Hmm.  Okay, rather than belabor the obvious, here's the question:

I'll grant that "Good Women" exist.  I'll even graant, with a couple exceptions, that the women on this board are good women.  Now, we can run into four types of women as we men go about our dating lives:  

    1 - The "Good Woman" who deplores the way the courts are rigged against men, puts her child first, and would never do anything to deprive her child of it's father, or use the system as a clubto punish him, even if it means she doesn't get primary custody.

    2 - The woman who swears she would "never do that!" (And may actually think she means it) but when push comes to shove, decides better him then me when it comes to the divorce.)

    3 - The Woman who pays lip service to "I'd never use the bias in family court to my advantage" and lies through her teeth.

    4 - The blatant rad-fem who enjoys her power in the Family Court, and would exercise it at every opportunity because she can.

Number 4 is easy to spot, and frankly, I have no sympathy for any man who knows this rattlesnake when he picks her up, and syill syupidly expects he won't get bit.  However, by the same token, women this obvious, and men that stupid are few and far between.

Now all three of the rest look alike.  They all talk the same talk.  I'll be dipped if I can tell one from the other without a few years of careful observation. So, here's the question:

As a Type 1 woman, how do we know that you are the proverbial safe cigarette?   In other words, what are your identifying characteristics, ones that cannot be faked or emulated by the other two remaining types?

I ask this because many of you are frustrated with what you see as male unwillingness to "give you a chance" in the game of romance.  There's a lot of Ambers out there who froth at the moth and shriek about how we "MRA's" HATE marriage.  So rather than pull an Amber and get hysterical, here's your chance to rebut this, and to show why, with sweet reason, it is worth it for men to play the rigged game.

The list above is WHY we "Evil Women Hating, Child Hating, Family Hating, Communist M.R.A. Hate Movementers" think that marriage is a trap, a corruption, and should be eschewed until reformed.  If we're wrong, here's a chance to show us.  Prove it.  Tell us why we should roll the dice at your table.  I'm putting a 30 day time limit on this poll.
Main / Oh, yeah, BABY!!!!!!!!!!
Dec 19, 2003, 12:17 PM
From the bottom of this Article:,,5-2003582314,,00.html

THE SUN has published few more emotive articles than the one by Bob Geldof on this page.

His description of standing outside his old home weeping and whispering goodnight to his children on Christmas Eve will bring a tear to the eye of many readers.

Especially the hundreds of thousands of dads who won't see their children this Christmas because of what Geldof rightly brands our "grotesque" Family Law.

The courts award custody of 93 per cent of children from broken homes to their mothers.

That does not always benefit the children but, as Geldof can testify, promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale.

There is no presumption in English law that fathers have rights.

And there is little the courts can do if a bitter mother refuses to let her former partner see their children.

Today The Sun launches a campaign to have our laws changed so that fathers have an automatic right to 50-50 access.

Men who leave home are not criminals who deserve to be punished.

And children need a dad. Even one who doesn't live with Mum is still a very special and important person in their lives.


I can add nothing.  Hail, Brittania!
Main / Christmas, Presents, and CATS!!!
Dec 16, 2003, 08:02 PM
How to wrap presents when you live with a cat.

1. Clear large space on table for wrapping present.

2. Go to closet and collect bag in which present is contained, and shut door.

3. Open door and remove cat from closet.

4. Go to cupboard and retrieve rolls of wrapping paper.

5. Go back and remove cat from cupboard.

6. Go to drawer, and collect transparent sticky tape, ribbons, scissors, labels, etc. . .

7. Lay out presents and wrapping materials on table, to enable wrapping strategy to be formed.

8. Go back to drawer to get string, remove cat that has been in the drawer since last visit and collect string.

9. Remove present from bag.

10. Remove cat from bag.

11. Open box to check present, remove cat from box, replace present.

12. Lay out paper to enable cutting to size.

13. Try and smooth out paper, realize cat is underneath and remove cat.

14. Cut the paper to size, keeping the cutting line straight.

15. Throw away first sheet as cat chased the scissors, and tore the paper.

16. Cut second sheet of paper to size - by putting cat in the bag the present came in.

17. Place present on paper.

18. Lift up edges of paper to seal in present.  Wonder why edges don't reach. Realize cat is between present and paper.  Remove cat.

19. Place object on paper, to hold in place while tearing transparent sticky tape.

20. Spend 20 minutes carefully trying to remove transparent sticky tape from cat with pair of nail scissors.

21. Seal paper with sticky tape, making corners as neat as possible.

22. Look for roll of ribbon. Chase cat down hall in order to retrieve ribbon.

23. Try to wrap present with ribbon in a two-directional turn.

24. Re-roll ribbon and remove paper, which is now torn due to cat's enthusiastic ribbon chase.

25. Repeat steps 13-20 until you reach last sheet of paper.

26. Decide to skip steps 13-17 in order to save time and reduce risk of losing last sheet of paper. Retrieve old cardboard box that is the right size for sheet of paper.

27. Put present in box, and tie down with string.

28. Remove string, open box and remove cat.

29. Put all packing materials in bag with present and head for locked room.

30. Once inside lockable room, lock door and start to relay out paper and materials.

31. Remove cat from box, unlock door, put cat outside door, close and relock.

32. Repeat previous step as often as is necessary (until you can hear cat from outside door)

33. Lay out last sheet of paper. (This will be difficult in the small area of the toilet, but do your best)

34. Discover cat has already torn paper. Unlock door go out and hunt through various cupboards, looking for sheet of last year's paper.

35. Remember that you haven't got any left because cat helped with this last year as well.

36. Return to lockable room, lock door, and sit on toilet and try to make torn sheet of paper look presentable.

37. Seal box, wrap with paper and repair by very carefully sealing with sticky tape. Tie up with ribbon and decorate with bows to hide worst areas.

38. Label. Sit back and admire your handiwork, congratulate yourself on completing a difficult job.

39. Unlock door, and go to kitchen to make a drink and feed the cat.

40. Spend 15 minutes looking for cat until coming to obvious conclusion.

41. Unwrap present, untie box and remove cat.

42. Go to store and buy a gift bag.
Main / The age old Question
Dec 16, 2003, 04:17 AM
Why do women like jerks?

Serious biz.  Got a phone call last night from an old friend, who needed a ride.  Seems her boyfriend and her had been out, had a fight, and he went off to the men's room and then just left.  Left her holding the bill, left her at the club, and they couldn't scan her card there.

Pete to the rescue.  Drive 30 miles to get her, off to the bank, she pays me back for handling her tab, and insists I take another 20.  Where does she want to go next?  Home?  Off to hire a hit man?

No.  She wants to go to Wal-Mart.  She wants to get flowers for the SOB.  She wants to be dropped by his house, and when we get there, his ex-girlfriend's car is in the driveway, and the only light on is in the bedroom.  She calls, and calls.  Finally, I told her I'm not letting her make a scene, and take her home, making sure her brother has her keys.

To make a long story short, her biggest concern is how she "pushed" him into this.

Why do women like jerks?

Sometimes I think I'm a jerk myself, but even I, on my nastiest night, would say "Date's over, I'm taking you home, call me when your PMS is over."  Being Blunt and abrubt is one thing - sticking your date with the check, and leaving her high and dry, and then going off and boning your ex?  That's way over the top, even by my reckoning.

And I have been a jerk.  I ran the numbers.  Back in the day when I was the flower of romanticism, I couldn't get a date but once in a blue moon.  Get a little cynicism and bitterness, and start telling women up front, mind you, I am only interested in a piece of ass, and I just about had to hire a social secretary.  Act like a human being?  Nada.  Act like an utter neanderthal?  I damn near had to get a stunt double.

I'm not talking about "You were probably just being confident."  No, I was a jerk.  I kept 3 or 4 women on a string, warned them if they were "porking up," broke dates, told them to shut up because they were there to look pretty, made them call me, dictated terms, and all that.  When told by a woman once she didn't believe in sex on the first date, I told her I didn't believe in having  second date if I didn't get sex - I damn well footed the bill, and if she wanted to "explore the relationship" she could damn well pick up the check.  If I paid, I got what I paid for, or there would be no second date.  Guess what?  I got laid.

When I want me some of that stuff, I turn on the boorish charm, play the rogue, and I guarantee I am not going home alone.  I've learned the best way to get rid of a woman I don't care for who is pestering me is to be nice to her.

So - why do women like jerks?  Or better yet, why can't they just admit it?
Main / Yes, Virgina, Nazis are Socialists
Nov 28, 2003, 07:36 AM
J.J. Ray
University of New South Wales, Australia

Although Hitler himself claimed to be a socialist, this claim seems normally to be totally ignored. Evidence in support of the view that he was in fact a vociferous socialist is reviewed. The essence of his popularity with Germans appears to have been his combination of two very seductive policy themes: socialism and nationalism. He thus stole the emotional clothes of both the Left and the Right. The implications for present-day German and Russian politics are briefly explored.

The Demand for Explanation

Now that more than 50 years have passed since the military defeat of Hitler's Germany, one might have thought that Hitler's name would be all but forgotten. This is far from the case, however. Even in the popular press, references to him are incessant and the trickle of TV documentaries on the Germany of his era would seem to be unceasing.

Hitler even featured on the cover of a 1995 Time magazine.

This finds its counterpart in the academic literature too. Scholarly works on Hitler's deeds continue to emerge (e.g. Feuchtwanger, 1995) and in a recent survey of the history of Western civilization, Lipson (1993) named Hitlerism and the nuclear bomb as the two great evils of the 20th century. Stalin's tyranny lasted longer, Pol Pot killed a higher proportion of his country's population and Hitler was not the first Fascist but the name of Hitler nonetheless hangs over the entire 20th century as something inescapably and inexplicably malign. It seems doubtful that even living in the 21st century will erase from the minds of thinking people the still largely unfulfilled need to understand how and why Hitler became so influential and wrought so much evil.

The fact that so many young Germans (particular from the old Communist East) today still salute his name and perpetuate much of his politics is also an amazement and a deep concern to many and what can only be called the resurgence of Nazism among many young Germans at the close of the 20th century would seem to generate a continuing and pressing need to understand the Hitler phenomenon.

So what was it that made Hitler so influential? What was it that made him (as pre-war histories such as Roberts, 1938, attest) the most popular man in the Germany of his day? Why does he still have many admirers now in the Germany on which he inflicted such disasters? What was (is?) his appeal? And why, of all things, are the young products of an East German Communist upbringing still so susceptible to his message?

There have been many proposed explanations of Hitler's influence and deeds but nearly all of the social scientific explanations very rapidly come up with the word "insanity" or one of its synonyms (e.g. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). Attributing mental illness or mental disturbance to Hitler seems to be the only way we can deal with his malign legacy.

But is this plausible? Do madmen achieve popular acclaim among their own people? Do madmen inspire their countrymen to epics of self sacrifice? Do madmen leave a mark on history unlike any other? Until Hitler came along, the answers to all these questions would surely have been "no".

So is there an alternative explanation? Is there something other than mental illness that can explain Hitler's success? If there is we surely owe it to ourselves and to our children to find out. If by dismissing Hitlerism as madness we miss what really went on in Hitler's rise to power we surely run dreadful risks of allowing some sort of Nazi revival. The often extreme expressions of nationalism to be heard from Russia today surely warn us that a Fascist upsurge in a major European State is no mere bogeyman. What we fail to understand we may be unable to prevent. All possible explanations for the Nazi phenomenon do surely therefore demand our attention. It is the purpose of the present paper, therefore, to explain the rise and power of Hitler's Nazism in a way that does not take the seductive route of invoking insanity.

National Socialism Rightist?

The word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation of the name of Hitler's political party -- the Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. In English this translates to "The National Socialist German Worker's Party". So Hitler was a socialist and a champion of the workers -- or at least he identified himself as such and campaigned as such. The almost universal claim that Hitler's National Socialism was Right-wing has always therefore been a little strange.

How can any type of socialism be Rightist?

I will argue that this claim must in fact be one of old-time Communism's most successful "big lies" and that the perhaps surprising fact of the matter is that Hitler's National Socialism was Right-wing only in relation to Communism. I will submit the radically simple thesis that Hitler's appeal to Germans was much as the name of his political party would suggest -- a heady brew of rather extreme Leftism (socialism) combined with equally extreme nationalism -- with Hitler's obsession with the Jews being a relatively minor aspect of Nazism's popular appeal, as Dietrich (1988) shows.

So let us look at some of the basic facts that history (See, for example, Roberts, 1938; Heiden, 1939; Shirer, 1964; Bullock, 1964; Taylor, 1963; Hagan, 1966; Feuchtwanger, 1995) tells us about Hitler's politics in the lead-up to World War II.

Hitler's Election Pledges

Although one gets perhaps the most basic hint that Hitler really was a socialist from the name of the political party he led, party names are not always very informative (e.g. "The People's Democratic Republic of ...." will generally be a brutal tyranny with scant regard for either the people or democracy) so more evidence than can be found in a mere name is needed. So some of the promises made in Hitler's various election campaigns are also therefore instructive: The limitation of income to a thousand Marks per head, the nationalization of trusts (business conglomerates) and department stores, agrarian reform, the confiscation of war profits, the elimination of "unearned income" and employment for all were all promised at one stage or another by Hitler or his henchmen.

How Right-wing does all that sound?

It is of course true that, as he came closer to power, Hitler did reject the outright nationalization of industry as too Marxist. As long as the State could enforce its policies on industry, Hitler considered it wisest to leave the nominal ownership and day to day running of industry in the hands of those who had already shown themselves as capable of running and controlling it. This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler! There are of course many differences between postwar Sweden and Hitler's Germany but the point remains that Hitler's perfectly reasonable skepticism about the virtues of nationalizing all industry is far from sufficient to disqualify him as a Leftist.

It is also true that both Hitler and Mussolini received financial and other support from big businessmen and other "establishment" figures but this is simply a reflection of how radicalized Germany and Italy were at that time. Hitler and Mussolini were correctly perceived as a less hostile alternative (a sort of vaccine) to the Communists.

And what was that about election campaigns? Yes, Hitler did start out as a half-hearted revolutionary (the Munich Putsch) but after his resultant incarceration was able enough and flexible enough to turn to basically democratic methods of gaining power. He was thenceforth the major force in his party insisting on legality for its actions and did eventually gain power via the ballot box rather than by way of violent revolution. It is true that the last election (as distinct from referenda) he faced (on May 3rd, 1933) gave him a plurality (44% of the popular vote) rather than a majority but that is normal in any electoral contest where there are more than two candidates. Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher never gained a majority of the popular vote either. After the May 1933 elections, Hitler was joined in a coalition government by Hugenburg's Nationalist party (who had won 8% of the vote) to give a better majority (52%) than many modern democratic governments enjoy. On March 24th, 1933 the Reichstag passed an Enabling Act giving full power to Hitler for four years (later extended by referendum). The Centre Party voted with the Nazi-led coalition government. Thus Hitler's accession to absolute power was quite democratically achieved. Even Hitler's subsequent banning of the Communist party and his control of the media at election time have precedents in democratic politics.

Even the torturous backroom negotiations that led to Hitler's initial appointment as Chancellor (Prime Minister) by President Hindenburg on January 30th, 1933 hardly delegitimize that appointment or make it less democratic. Shirer (1964) and others describe this appointment as being the outcome of a "shabby political deal" but that would seem disingenuous. The fact is that Hitler was the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag and torturous backroom negotiations about alliances and deals generally are surely well-known to most practitioners of democratic politics. One might in fact say that success at such backroom negotiations is almost a prerequisite for power in a democratic system -- particularly, perhaps, under the normal European electoral system of proportional representation. It might in fact not be too cynical to venture the comment that "shabby political deals" have been rife in democracy at least since the time of Thucydides. Some practitioners of them might even claim that they are what allows democracy to work at all.

The fact that Hitler appealed to the German voter as basically a rather extreme social democrat is also shown by the fact that the German Social Democrats (orthodox democratic Leftists who controlled the unions as well as a large Reichstag deputation) at all times refused appeals from the German Communist party for co-operation against the Nazis. They evidently felt more affinity with Hitler than with the Communists. Hitler's eventual setting up of a one-party State and his adoption of a "four year plan", however, showed who had most affinity with the Communists. Hitler was more extreme than the Social Democrats foresaw.

The only heartfelt belief that Hitler himself ever had would appear to have been his antisemitism but his primary public appeal was nonetheless always directed to "the masses" and their interests and his methods were only less Bolshevik than those of the Bolsheviks themselves.

Hitler's Post-election Manoeuvres

It is true that Hitler proceeded to entrench himself in power in all sorts of ways once he came to rule but reluctance to relinquish power once it is gained is not uncharacteristic of the far Left in a democracy. In the early '70's, for instance, Australia had a government of a very Leftist character (the Whitlam government) that tried to continue governing against all constitutional precedent when refused money by Parliament. Because Australia is a monarchy with important powers vested in the vice-regal office, however, the government could be and was dismissed and a constitutional crisis thus avoided. It may also be noted that the Whitlam government presided over a considerable upsurge of Australian nationalism. It was literally a national socialist government. Unlike Hitler, however, it was very anti-militaristic (particularly in the light of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam fiasco) and did not persecute its political opponents. Australia has, after all, inherited from its largely British forebears very strong traditions of civil liberty.

Among other far-Left democratic governments that have been known to cling to power with dubious public support the government of Malta by Mintoff and Mifsud-Bonnici springs to mind. On a broader scale, the use of gerrymanders by democratic governments of all sorts also tends to entrench power. Democratically-elected governments are not always great respecters of democracy. The post-war Liberal Democratic (conservative) government of Japan never had a majority of the popular vote and ruled for over 30 years only by virtue of a gerrymander. Yet it has generally been regarded as democratic. None of this is said with any intention of excusing Hitler or drawing exact parallels with him. The aim is rather to show roughly in what sort of company he belongs as far as his attitude to democracy is concerned. In other words, like many democratic politicians he was a reluctant democrat (surely more reluctant than most) but his coming to power by democratic means still cannot be ignored. It meant that he had to be fairly popular and this affected the sort of person he could be and the policies he could advocate. As sincerity in a politician is hard to feign successfully, for maximum effectiveness (and Hitler was a very effective leader) he more or less had to be the sort of person who had a genuine feeling for his own people and who thus would not want to make war on large sections of them (unlike Stalin, Pol Pot and Li Peng of Tien Anmen Square fame). This meant that the great hostility which seems to be characteristic of the extreme Leftist had to have another outlet. Hitler was simply being an ordinary European of his times in finding the outlet he did: The Jews.

Hitler's Socialist Deeds

When in power Hitler also implemented a quite socialist programme. Like F.D. Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford. And while Hitler did not nationalize all industry, there was extensive compulsory reorganization of it and tight party control over it. It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands.

The Conservatives and Hitler

And what about the conservatives of Hitler's day? Both in Germany and Britain he despised them and they despised him. Far from being an ally of Hitler or in any way sympathetic to him, Hitler's most unrelenting foe was the arch-Conservative British politician, Winston Churchill and it was a British Conservative Prime Minister (Neville Chamberlain) who eventually declared war on Hitler's Germany. Hitler found a willing ally in the Communist Stalin as long as he wanted it but at no point could he wring even neutrality out of Churchill. Not that Churchill was a saint. In 1939 Churchill exulted over the Finns "tearing the guts out of the Red Army" but, despite that, he later allied himself with Stalin. Like Mussolini, he was something of a pragmatist and saw Hitler as the biggest threat. Churchill therefore, despite his opposition to all socialist dictators, retreated eventually to the old wisdom that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". His basic loathing for both Hitler's and Stalin's forms of socialism is, however very much a matter of record.

Parenthetically, it should perhaps be noted that the lessons of history are seldom simple. The fact that the British Prime Minister who actually declared war on Hitler was a (mildly) anti-Semitic English jingoist -- Neville Chamberlain -- is something of an irony. Churchill was soon called upon to replace Chamberlain at least in part because Churchill's opposition to Hitler was seen as more heartfelt and consistent.
In keeping with the fundamental opposition between Churchill's English conservatism (Rightism) and any form of socialism, it might also be noted that German monarchists were among Hitler's victims on "the night of the long knives".

Nor is Hitler's going to war uncharacteristic of a social democrat (democratic Leftist). Who got the U.S.A. involved in Vietnam? J.F. Kennedy and L.B. Johnson. And who got the troops out? Richard Nixon. I am not, of course, comparing the Vietnam involvement with Hitler's Blitzkrieg. Kennedy and Johnson were, after all, only mildly Leftist whereas Hitler was extremely Leftist. All I am pointing out is that there is nothing in social democratic politics that automatically precludes military adventurism.


Perhaps the only thing that does at first sight support the characterization of Hitler as a Rightist is his nationalism. There generally does seem to be an association between political Conservatism and nationalism/patriotism (Ray & Furnham, 1984). This presumably flows from the fact that Leftists generally seem attached to their well-known doctrine that, in some unfathomable way, "all men are equal". They seem to need this philosophically dubious doctrine to give some intellectual justification for socialist (levelling) policies. If all men are equal, however, then it surely follows that all groups of men/women are equal too. Leftism and nationalism have therefore some philosophical inconsistency and a consistent Leftist usually has to deny nationalism. Thus only the conservatives are normally left to offer any reasoned defence of nationalism. Since nationalism is just another form of group loyalty, however, and group loyalty seems to be a major and virtually universal wellspring of human motivation (Brown, 1986; Ardrey, 1961), this normally leaves conservatives in sole charge of some very powerful emotional ammunition.

Hitler's Magic Mix

Shoeck (1966) has however shown at some length that envy is also a very basic, powerful and pervasive human emotion and levelling policies such socialism will always therefore have great appeal too --regardless of any spurious intellectual gloss that may or may not be put on them (such as the gloss provided by the "all men are equal" doctrine). Hitler was one of those who felt no need for such a gloss. The raw emotional appeal of socialism was enough for him. This also meant that he also felt no pressure to deny nationalism. He could be as nationalist as he liked. And he did like! He in fact used nationalism to justify socialism. Germans deserved to be looked after, not because of their innate equality but because of their glorious Germanness. This was extremely clever and hard to resist. As noted above, nationalism is a heady and universally appealing brew. Thus Hitler's socialism had a double dose (socialism plus nationalism) of emotional appeal that enabled him, despite his extremity, to come to power by way of a popular vote whereas Communism normally has to rely on bloody revolution and forcible seizure of power. Hitler's brand of socialism was, then, a cleverer one than most: It had something for everybody. He stole the clothes of both the Left and the Right. With the Nazis you could be both a socialist and a nationalist. Hitler was thus simply the most effective figure in showing that socialism and nationalism, far from being intrinsically opposed, could be very successfully integrated into an electorally appealing whole. With the additional aid of Goebbels' brilliant showmanship, the Nazis simply had it all when it came to popular appeals to the emotions. So Nazism was emotional rather than insane.

In summary, Hitler saw from the outset (Bullock, 1964) that a combination of Leftist and Rightist appeals could be emotionally successful among the masses, no matter what he personally believed. If the basic message of the Left was "We will look after you" and the message of the Right is "We are the greatest", then Hitler saw no reason why he could not offer both nostrums for sale. He did not trouble either himself or the masses with details of how such offers could be delivered.

Stalin as a National Socialist

Hitler's strategy for popularity was not lost on Stalin. Quite soon after Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin reopened the Russian Orthodox churches and restored the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial army to the Red Army so that it became simply the Russian Army and stressed nationalist themes (e.g. defence of "Mother Russia") in his internal propaganda. As one result of this, to this day Russians refer to the Second World War as "the great patriotic war". Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he ended up a national socialist. So Hitler was a Rightist only in the sense that Stalin was. If Stalin was Right-wing, however, black might as well be white.

It has already been mentioned that in Australia too, socialism and nationalism have been found to be quite compatible.

Ho Chi Minh as a National Socialist

Stalin showed that National Socialism could be used effectively against another National Socialist but it took Ho Chi Minh's regime and its Southern extension to demonstrate that National Socialism could even defeat the Great Republic (the United States). That Ho Chi Minh was a socialist is hardly now disputable and it is also clear that he had Vietnamese nationalism working for him in his fight against the American interventionists. Their foreignness made this easy to do. Note that the Viet Cong were formally known as the National Liberation Front. Their primary ostensible appeal was in fact national, though their socialism was of course never seriously in doubt. So the nationalism of Ho Chi Minh's regime gave it widespread support or at least co-operation in the South as well as in the North. Ho thus stole the emotional clothes of the conservatives as effectively as Hitler did and the magic mix of nationalism and socialism was once again shown to be capable of generating enormous military effectiveness against apparently forbidding odds. So the simple explanation that works to explain Hitler's amazing challenge to the world also works to explain the equaly amazing defeat of the world's mightiest military power by an relatively insignificant Third World nation.

A National Socialist regime has such a strong emotional appeal that it galvanizes its subject population to Herculean efforts in a way that few other (if any) regimes can. It sounds about as crazy as you get to claim that it was Nazism that defeated the U.S. in Vietnam but this once again shows how Nazism has been misunderstood and consequently underrated.

Is Racism Rightist?

If nationalism is no proof of Rightism, what about racism? Racism and nationalism seem distinguishable so does not Hitler's racism make him Rightist? Hardly. The post-war exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union and the tales of persecution that they brought with them are surely proof enough of that. There is an association between conservatism and racism in modern-day America but Sniderman, Brody & Kuklinski (1984) have shown that this is confined to the well-educated. Among Americans with only a basic education, the association is not to be found. Similarly, general population surveys in Australia and England find no association between the two variables (Ray & Furnham, 1984; Ray, 1984). Any association between racism and Rightism is, then, clearly contingent on circumstances and is not therefore of definitional significance.

Finally, it is clear that anti-Semitism was not a defining feature of Fascism. It was more a defining feature of Northern European culture. Both Mussolini in Italy and Mosley in Britain were Fascist leaders but neither was initially anti-Semitic. It is true that Mussolini was eventually pushed into largely unenforced antisemitic decrees by Hitler and it is true that Mosley was eventually pushed into doubts about Jews because of attacks on his meetings by Jewish Communists (Skidelsky, 1975 Ch. 20) but in the early 1930s Mosley actually expelled from his party Fascist speakers who made anti-Semitic remarks and one of the few places in Europe during the second world war where Jews were largely protected from persecution was in fact Fascist Italy (Herzer, 1989; Steinberg, 1990). Many Jews to this day owe their lives to Fascist Italians.

Distinguishing Hitler from Stalin

Hitler was, however, more Rightist than Stalin in the sense that, as a popular leader, he did not need to resort to extreme forms of oppressive control over his people (Unger, 1965). German primary and secondary industry did not need to be nationalized because they largely did Hitler's bidding willingly. State control was indeed exercised over German industry but it was done without formally altering its ownership and without substantially alienating or killing its professional managers.
The contempt that Hitler had for Stalin and for "Bolshevism" generally should also not mislead us in assessing the similarity between Nazism and Communism. Leftist sects are very prone to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union, China "teaching Vietnam a lesson", the Vietnamese suppression of the Khmer Rouge etc. Similarity does not preclude rivalry and in the end it was mainly competition for power that set Hitler and Stalin on a collision course.

Under Stalin's wartime innovations, the difference between Nazism and Communism became largely a difference of emphasis. Both Nazism and Communism were nationalistic and socialist but with Communism, socialism was the ideological focus and justification for State power whereas with Nazism, nationalism was the ideological focus and justification for State power.

There always remained, however, one essential difference between Nazi and Communist ideology: Their responses to social class. Stalin preached class war and glorified class consciousness whereas Hitler wanted to abolish social classes and root out class-consciousness. Both leaders, as socialists, saw class inequality as a problem but their solutions to it differed radically. The great Nazi slogan Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer ("One State, one people, one leader") summed this up. Hitler wanted unity among Germans, not class antagonisms. He wanted loyalty to himself and to Germany as a whole, not loyalty to any class. Stalin wanted to unite the workers. Hitler wanted to unite ALL Germans. Stalin openly voiced his hatred of a large part of his own population; Hitler professed to love all Germans regardless of class (except for the Jews, of course). This was indeed a fundamental difference and substantially accounts both for Hitler's unwavering contempt for Bolshevism and his popularity among all classes of Germans.

The Holocaust

But what about Hitler's policies towards the Jews? How do we explain those? Towards the beginning of this paper, I quoted Dietrich's conclusion that Hitler's antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans. One reason for this view is the important but seldom stressed fact that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s. Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so. The plain fact is that it was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust. To its shame, the whole world did. That part of the world under Hitler's control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape -- just as the world would later refuse many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and will in due course refuse to take other would-be refugees from other places. Racial affect is now recognized as universal in psychology textbooks (Brown, 1986) and Anti Semitism is, sad to say, an old and widely popular European tradition. There seems to be considerable truth in the view that the Nazis just applied German thoroughness to it. It is true that Hitler can be seen as obsessed with the Jews rather than being merely antisemitic but this too could be seen as more Austrian than personal. So Hitler's anti Jewish policies (as far as they ever became popularly known) were actually among his least controversial policies. The support for them needs no great explanation beyond a reference to the general attitudes of the times. As far as the average German knew, Hitler was just running (yawn) a Pogrom. The Russians did it all the time, didn't they? It was Hitler's nationalist and socialist policies that were really interesting.

Fascism & Mussolini

Hitler was not however original in being both a socialist and a nationalist. The Italian nationalist leader, Mussolini, came to power much before Hitler but was in fact even more Leftist than Hitler. Although generally regarded as the founder of Fascism, in his early years Mussolini was one of Italy's leading Marxist theoreticians. He was even an intimate of Lenin. He first received his well-known appellation of Il Duce ("the leader") while he was still a member of Italy's "Socialist" (Marxist) party and, although he had long been involved in democratic politics, he gained power by essentially revolutionary means (the march on Rome). Even after he had gained power, railing against "plutocrats" remained one of his favourite rhetorical ploys. He was, however, an instinctive Italian patriot and very early on added a nationalistic appeal to his message, thus being the first major figure to add the attraction of nationalism to the attraction of socialism. He was the first socialist to learn the lesson that Hitler and Stalin after him used to such "good" effect. It is true that, like Hitler, Mussolini allowed a continuation of capitalism in his country (though the addition of strict party controls over it in both Italy and Germany should be noted) but Mussolini justified this on Marxist grounds! He was, in fact, it could be argued, more of an orthodox Marxist than was Lenin. As with the Russian Mensheviks, it seemed clear to Mussolini that, on Marxist theory, a society had to go through a capitalist stage before the higher forms of socialism and communism could be aspired to. He believed that capitalism was needed to develop a country industrially and, as Italy was very underdeveloped in that regard, capitalism had to be tolerated. What some see as Rightism, therefore, was in fact to Mussolini orthodox Marxism. Mussolini held this view from the early years of this century and he therefore greeted with some glee the economic catastrophe that befell Russia when the Bolsheviks took over. He regarded the economic failure of Bolshevism as evidence for the correctness of orthodox Marxism.
Nor was Mussolini a socialist in name only. He also put socialist policies into action. Thanks to him, Fascist Italy had in the thirties what was arguably the most comprehensive welfare State in the world at that time (Gregor, 1979).

It could be said, in fact, that Italian Fascism was noticeably closer to Communism than Nazism was. This is not only because of the influence of Marxism on Mussolini's ideology but because Mussolini's nationalism was sentimental and nostalgic rather than the intellectual and ideological nationalism of Hitler. Thus it is primarily the degree of ideological focus on nationalism that distinguishes the three forms of authoritarian socialism:

Nazism, Fascism and Communism.

That Nazism and Fascism are commonly called Right-wing when in fact they were Right-wing only in relation to Bolshevik "Communism" does, then, tell us much about the dominant perspective of intellectuals in most of the 20th century.

As an historical summary, then, Nazism and Fascism had great appeal simply because they stole the emotional clothes of both the Left and the Right.

Nazism in Germany Today

Although there are neo-Nazi movements throughout the world today, the phenomenon would appear to be of greatest concern in the former East Germany. There we find that apparently large numbers of young racist thugs are actively attacking immigrants in the name of "Germany for the Germans" and the Swastika is once more an insignia of terror for minorities. Yet are not these same young East Germans the product of a diligent Communist education? Surely they should have been the least likely to become Fascists? Why have they in fact become Hitler's most obvious heirs?

The facts pointed out in this paper make the phenomenon no mystery at all, however. A Communist education is an extreme socialist education and Nazism was extreme socialism too. All you need to do is to add the nationalist element and you have Nazism. And nationalist feeling seems to be virtually innate anyway so, rather than actively "add" it, all you have to do is permit it -- and modern Germany is a very permissive state.
In fact, even the old East German State was quite nationalist. In its always precarious struggle for legitimacy, it did much to present itself as the spiritual heir of old Prussia (which it largely was in a territorial sense). So socialist East Germany was also nationalist, though not aggressively so. It was low-key Nazi! So it turns out that the deeds of the young East German thugs we are considering are indeed traceable to their education. German National Socialism has the same outcome in the 1980s and 90s as in did in the 30s and 40s.

Fascism in Contemporary Russia

Russia in the immediate post-Soviet era was kept on a largely democratic course by the erratic ex-Soviet apparatchik Boris Yeltsin, but what can we expect of the post-Yeltsin Russia with its powerful Fascist bloc under Zhirinovsky, its powerful Communist bloc under Zyuganov and the popularity of nationalism generally there? Will a socialist background combined with strong nationalist traditions again produce a Nazi-type regime? Will there be a Russian Hitler? Russia's nationalist traditions were, as we have seen, encouraged to a degree even under Communism (by Stalin and his successors) so it seems not unlikely. It just needs nationalism to become an ideological focus in lieu of socialism, and we will have Communism reborn as Fascism. And since socialism as an ideological focus does seem to be in extremis in the post-Soviet world, we might well expect a people accustomed to a strong ideological focus in their politics to be looking for a replacement focus. Only a small step would be required to make the transition to Fascism.

And just as Hitler could harp on the past glories of the zweite Reich (the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and refuse to accept the internal collapse of the Kaiserreich (the German empire of World War I) so Zhirinovsky, Lebed and their ilk can stress the scientific glories and territorial reach of the former Soviet empire and refuse to accept that its collapse was due to internal causes. There is little doubt that a Russian Goebbels could find a workable basis for overweening Russian national pride and that such pride could be used as an antidote to present woes -- just as similar pride was once used in Weimar Germany.

Zhirinovsky and Lebed seem generally today to be seen in the West as clowns, but Hitler was once seen that way too.
Main / There they go again.
Nov 26, 2003, 04:44 PM
For bout the umpteenth time I've read again about - some government - deciding to stick their nose in and promote or shore up "marriage."  Once again, some harebrained government solution, which is going to involve A) the creation of some department, with a corresponding big shot in a nice paneled office with a big salary, B) The transfer of money for social engineering purposes, and C) the average schmuck paying for it out of their taxes.  And all of this will be justified by that age old excuse of tyrants, "For the sake of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren!"

When, oh, when will people ever learn that if government is the answer, it's gotta be a stupid question?  It's drivel like this that has me wanting to wrap my hands around a two-by-four and commence to knocking some sense into some bureaucrat head.  Honest to God, why we don't have a bounty on these boneheads I'll never know.

While I'm tempted to go into specifics and deconstruct it point by point, on reflection I have to ask, Why bother?"  They're all the same, anyway.  And they're all around.  Go read up on your favorite one.  You pick it.

Once again, a hundred lashes with the 2X4 of Cluelessness to these morons.  Ever want to trace the decline of marriage?  You'll find it coincides with the government deciding to stick their noses into it.

Was a time when a man and a woman decided to get married, it was to establish a household, primarily for the raising of children.  Older folks past the childbearing years had their own stuff, and were discreet about getting their nookie, and saw no sense in muddying the waters of inheritance of their own kids.  People just wanting to sow wild oats didn't settle down.  Go back a hundred years and posit getting married for a tax break, and nobody would get the joke.

Marriage used to be serious business, one you didn't enter into lightly, and were even more serious about getting out of.  Romantic notions about "true love" very rarely entered into the arrangement.  You married a partner, not some eye candy that you couldn't get on with outside of the bedroom.  It was work, too.  Everyone had a job and obligations within the marriage, and woe betide you if you failed to live up to them and give the aggrieved spouse "Grounds for Divorce."

Fact of the matter is, if the damn government (And the courts are part of the government if you remember your civics classes) got the hell out of the micromanagement of domestic life, most of the garbage that goes on concerning such situations would straighten itself out within a couple of generations.  Human nature, tending to be, well, natural would correct itself.  After some people paid a price for stupid decisions, and another price for getting out of them, you'd find them a whole lot less likely to commit them.

Abortion, divorce, paternity fraud, child support, visitation, the whole nine yards.  Let's say Da Gubbmint finally comes to it's senses and says "Screw all ya'll, you deal with it yourself."

Okay, first, there's gonna be a heaping dose of heartache for all involved.  Goes with the territory.  It's not the job of society or the government to make life work for you. Welcome to the wonderful world of consequence.  The only thing "The People" are going to do for you is take your kids away from you if you hurt them.

Now I could break it down point by point, but I ain't got time for it here right now.  It should be obvious to even an imbecile, and if one can't rise to that intellectual level, no amount of explaining and breaking out the crayons on my part will help anyway.  What's going to happen as a result of people having to come to the table and negotiate in good faith is the same damn thing that happened centuries ago.  Marriage.

Everyone wants a faithful partner.  Men don't want to support another man's brats, and women don't want the resources and labor the man brings to the table to be split with another woman.  

They'll both want equal say in the having of children - if, when, how many, and so forth.  Failure to live up to one's end of the deal will breach the contract.  Likewise, the raising of them will become a point for negotiation.

Nobody is going to go into a lifelong commitment like this without clauses that spell out serious consequences for the abandonment of the covenant; such clauses will usually revolve around losing your stake in the family.  No child support, no visitation.  No visitation, no child support.  Get something on the side, and watch the sanctions roll - kiss everything you built over the years together goodbye.  You ain't seeing it again, man or woman.  Fault based divorce is a very good thing.  It worked for years, until some pheminist inspired government schnook decided what weren't broke needed fixing.

People with black marks against them for abandonment will either wind up not getting married again, or will wind up with someone stupid.  Either way, everyone gets what they deserve.  I'm a big fan of Heinlein.  Stupidity deserves to be punished harshly and often.

Now Rad-Phems and other liberals will be the first to howl against this, mainly because they fear it.  The idea of someone being responsible for their own actions, and suffering the consequences thereof, is anathema to these folk.  The Rad-Phems will be panicked at the very thought of having to deal forthrightly with anything male on equal terms without a band of Fascist Government Stormtroopers behind the door as a trump card.

I'll put it to you though, that marriage was born without the help of Da Gubbmint, and did just fine without it for years.  This is the soil from which that tree sprung.  If people really want to strengthen it, what they need to do is drive these government whackos away from the garden where it grows, and quit futzing with it.

And if anyone wants to stand guard, I've got a spare two-by-four.
Main / What do men want?
Nov 25, 2003, 07:39 PM
Much is made on what men want.  Frankly, it's over analyzed.

We men are generally fairly straightforward creatures, and prone to being all business when it comes to the details of life (Which are no fun) and that gives us more time to devote to the business of living life.

So, here's "The Care and Feeding of your Male."

1)  He doesn't like to play bullshit emotional games.  The male feels something, he feels it.  He accepts and deals.  It's pointless to analyze a gut reaction.  He prefers to think about how he reacts to it, not the deep and hidden meanings, which usually are neither anyway.

2)  It's been said that men think about sex 7 times per minute.  That's bunk.  A male thinks about sex only once in his life.  That thought occurs at the onset of puberty, and rarely ends.  Yes, this means that all of your male "friends" have at one time or another thought about getting you in the sack.  Probably many times.  In fact, if you haven't been the object of at least one masturbatory fantasy, you're probably either physically repulsive, or an unspeakable bitch.  Yes, he is looking at your tits and checking out your ass

3) No, men don't want "Hero Worship" because the pedestal is just as uncomfortable for them.  He wants to be useful and wanted.  Both.  If he's wanted without being useful he feels like a kept man, and arm candy.  If he's useful without being wanted, he feels used and taken for granted.  Either way, count on him boinking your best friend.

4)  Your man is a problem solver.  To him, a person who talks about their problems and doesn't want to solve them is just a whiner.

5) Your man will not wish, upon his dying day, that he had done a better job of picking up his socks off the bedroom floor.  With that in mind, he will not give it a second thought while he lives.  Consider this carefully ladies - know any neat-freak men who aren't either control freaks or gay?

6) Make life a chore and soon the "relationship" will be a chore too.

7) Since men are better able to detatch and compartmentalize parts of ther life due to their brain structure, it often takes them a bit of time to shut one part of the grey matter off and start another one up.  This is referred to in the vernacular as "unwinding."  Respect it.  

8)  No, you're not being ignored.  Thousands of years of evolution and adaptation have turned your hunter male into a creature able to shut out all other external stimuli and concentrate on one thing to the exclusion of all else.  To the hunter after the deer, the birds flying overhead are registered as "not deer" and dismissed and forgotton without even conscious volition.  You will have to accept that you have to get his attention first.  Those thousands of yeaars of evolution will not be undone because Oprah and Dr. Phil say it should be in the latter half on the 20th century.

9)  Your male has to compete with other males, and is totally disinterested in competing with you in the slightest.  He doesn't even want to play tic-tac-toe with you.  If you force him to compete with you, he will regard you as one of the guys, because he plays to win, and you aren't supposed to "beat up" on girls.  He can only play, then, if he regards you as "not-girl."

10) Your male regards crying as emotional extortion.  Abuse it and expect to be regarded and treated as a criminal.

11) If you use sex as a medium of exchange to get what you want, you will be regarded as a prostitute

12)  Humans are hunter-gatherers.  The male is the hunter half of this equation.  This makes him a predator.  This is a profound truth.

13)  Laugh at male-bonding all you want.  By bonding with other males, he makes them part of his tribe, and he can then kick the competition instinct down.  This means he has to have time with them, without the presence of the female.

14) Males possess a strong fight or flight instinct.  If he moves to leave, let him.  He is leaving because he is stomping his "fight" instinct into the ground.  If you don't let him retreat, you are inviting him to fight.  And as politically incorrect as it is, it does mean you are asking for it.

15)  Words are cheap to a man, just sounds, just tools.  Things like saying "I love you" or "I'm sorry" don't impress him to utter or hear uttered.  Any schmuck can say words.  Show him and let him show you.

16) And finally, it is the nature of competition that one uses all of his opponent's weaknesses against him.  This means that your male cannot fathom at all why you would ever confess your weaknesses to your girlfriends.  This is why men keep certain parts of their lives from even their close friends - IT'S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.  He won't appreciate you sharing his secrets with your girlfriends, your mother, your sister, or the hens at the coffee klatch.  If he shares with you it is because he feels safe.  There are fewer betrayals to a man more unforgivable than to use what he shares with you as a weapon later, or if he finds out you've betrayed the husband-wife confidence.  At best, he will just clam up on you from that point on.