Have you heard of Go Red For Women? It’s an effort by the American Heart Association to raise awareness of heart disease in women. Friday is National Wear Red Day.
The AHA can’t really seem to get its statistics straight, claiming on one page that women account for over 52.6% of cardiovascular disease deaths here while stating the following here: “Final 2005 CVD death rates were 331.1 for males and 237.1 for females.” Furthermore, 2006 data on heart disease deaths shows the number of men per 100,000 who died from heart disease is 248.8 while the number for women is 162.2. In other words, men are 53.4% more likely to die from heart disease each year than women.
Again we see warping of statistics to serve a female-centric / men-don’t-matter agenda, just like when we’re told women rarely commit domestic violence, women never lie about rape, and only women’s cancer deserves funding. Now, apparently women die of heart disease more often than men!
It’s great to raise awareness that heart disease is the number one killer of women in the United States, but do they really have to exclude men? Apparently that’s the whole point, as you can see by their campaign for the HEART for Women Amendment: “Over the last 25 years, the death rate for heart disease in men has declined steadily (by more than 17%), while the death rate for women has declined by only 2.5%, resulting in a disparity in heart disease mortality in women compared to men.”
Ooh, there’s that disparity buzz word. It’s funny how even when men die more often there’s a disparity against women. And when women receive almost 60% of degrees, there’s a disparity in engineering degrees against women. And when women make the same pay for equal work, there’s a disparity in the number of female CEOs. Are we sensing a pattern here?
Heck, maybe with enough focus on the Go Red For Women movement – as opposed to a movement focused on heart health for both genders – we can turn that statistic around and get the death rate for men to go up where it ought to be! Seriously, though, the American Heart Association could still raise awareness in women just as effectively by calling it Go Red For Women and Men day.
No worries, though. Even if you’re male, you can call 1-888-MY-HEART for more information on how WOMEN can join the Go Red For Women movement and how WOMEN can get free information on heart health. Too bad my heart isn’t located in a woman’s body.
I propose we organize a Wear Tie-Dye For Men event. After all, men are #1 when it comes to dying. Last time I checked men still die five years younger than women and have higher death rates for the ten leading causes of death. Let’s call for men and women to wear a t-shirt with at least ten colors on it to work, one for each cause of death that men die more often from. I’m sure it would get attention.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }
won’t the red clash with the pink that everyone is already wearing?
i guess valentine’s day is coming up.
You just have to take into account that they are using feminist math.
Remember that math is a patriarchal construct designed to oppress women.
One of their credentialed (vs educated) mouthpieces claimed that Principia Mathematica was a “rape manual.” *
Key points of feminist math:
1) Black=white=gray, except when it is inconvenient.
2) 1+1 = whatever works best for the narrative.
3) When in doubt, utilize factum pulledfromrectum.
* Sandra Harding , professor of Social Sciences and Comparative Education at UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and the Director of the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.
It’s just the typical example of what you get when you look at the world in a feminist/sexist way.
Say it’s a campaign against heart diseases in general, not gender-specific, and I *may* contribute if I am feeling generous and altruistic enough.
Like I mentioned in an earlier comment to another post: Female health problems are NOT my problem. Sure, heart disease is unisex in its selection of its victims, but I have major problems and am majorly pissed off when you try to pull another one of these ‘elevate the women’ shenanigans such as this ‘Go Red For Women’ stunt.
This is the same logic as VAWA. Oh yes, violence against women is so special that another special category of laws need to be legislated against it. It’ll be a cold day in hell when there is a VAMA. Oh, bet’cha can’t use VAWA against a lesbian battering her partner, eh? The one with a penis is always the evil, violent and guilty one.
Lord……
The more I think about this the more I think that it’s just another useless exercise in ‘feel good, but don’t really do anything’ activism. Wear this color, honk your horn as you go by City Hall, tell everybody your bra color on Facebook so you ‘raise awareness’ of breast cancer. The females all get to work and waste half a day comparing red outfits, shoes, stockings, ooooh and ahhh over this one’s earrings, that one’s purse. Ok-a-a-a-a-y, so! Everyone duly notes your red outfit to denote ‘awareness’ of heart disease in women. And? Outside of the party mood and fun of comparing outfits, this doesn’t accomplish jack. It will be forgotten about the next week, or if remembered, it will be a discussion of the clothes worn.
This doesn’t DO anything!
@crella
It does just what is supposed to do:
It allows these women to feel better about themselves with no actual effort.
It lets them compete (and be catty about) what other women are wearing.
It justifies (in their way of thinking) man-bashing about the poor female victims of heart disease.
It gives them an excuse to go shopping.
” Is that how we dress for the office, you look like a walking blood clot”.
If they really cared, they’d be hosting a “Woman, stop eating that chocolate bar!” day.
I’m waiting for Women’s Dental Health day.
Another thing what they are doing is they are not comparing the ages of heart victims.
The vast majority of women with heart disease are elderly – women like Dr. Helen having heart disease are quite rare. Most of these statistics are based upon women in advanced years.
But, men have their lives cut short by heart disease at a significantly higher rate than women – ie. more men have heart disease in mid-life and die from a heart attack at 40, 50, or 60 years of age.
In fact, one of the most significant things we could do to closing the “life expectancy gap” between men and women, would be to concentrate on finding a cure for heart disease in middle aged men.
I have an old Carey Roberts article on this subject – from 2005 – saved here.
From the article:
Those figures actually understate the extent of the problem, because when men die of heart disease, they are typically in their 40s and 50s, whereas women usually die of heart disease at a later age.
This means that when women die from this condition, their kids are out on their own. But men stricken by heart disease are still the main breadwinners for the family, working overtime to pay off the mortgage and driving the kids to soccer practice. His untimely death is a medical and financial disaster for the wife and kids.
Public health experts have a way of gauging that age effect — it’s called “Years of potential life lost.” So in 2002, the number of potential years lost due to heart disease was 1,707 for men, and only 749 for women. That’s more than a two-fold difference.
I’ve had disdain for the American Heart Association for many years:
–they accept contributions from the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are candidates for inclusion in their treatment guidelines
–they venture into neurologic and pediatric care, where they have no expertise
–they’ve historically created treatment guidelines based upon flimsy evidence
–they frequently revise treatment guidelines in order to generate demand for their courses. The guidelines have been unnecessarily complex.
According to Canada’s National Post, Womyn’s Studies was unfairly bashed in a January editorial. To make up for this horrible injustice against unfairly victimized Womyn and their brave Studies, the National Post has agreed to a two part series glorfying this wonderful, useful, glorious study program which all undergraduates should be subjected to from here on:
The article which just came out can be found here.
Remember guys:
Womyn’s Studies = Good / Men’s Studies = Bad.
I am a Womyn’s Studies major … hear me roar!!!
PS. Commenting on the NP site is free. Go nuts.
Why should I get worked up over this? If foolish people want to throw money at bullshit charities, why should it affect me?
Guess it’s kind of a “thing” these days that you can make absolutely anything more mainstream-friendly by slapping on “for women”. Maybe instead of teaching calculus, I should start teaching “calculus for women”
Maybe we should raise awareness of testicular cancer by having some kind of “Run for Testicular Cancer for Women”.
Typically I would agree with you. Funding for men’s health issues is abysmal compared to funding for women. but in this case I will disagree. Heart disease effects women differently from men and until recnetly, most research has focused on a one-size-fits-all approach that is more oriented to heart disease in men than women. So, in this case, and pretty much only in this case, I can support an attempt to fund research into heart disease in women. I won’t be contributing, I contribute money only to men’s issues or issues effecting both, but I won’t criticize this one either.
TDOM
I know it is dangerous to put to much stock in Darwinian/evo-psych explanations. However, I think that this, and other similar movements, are based on the unsettling 80/40 history. Eighty percent of women reproduced while only forty percent of men did. Men are nature’s expendable resource. While we are not completely driven by some genetic slave master, societies will reflect basic human drives and makeup.
Chivalrous men will continue to step up to join the sixty percent, by taking risks, dying in wars, working themselves to death, or just slipping away quietly the victim of a heart attack.
My guess is that the reason men suffer earlier, life shortening, heart attacks is because their lives are more stressful. Men are always in competition with the environment, other men, and even women. Just because some of that competition happens in the relatively comfortable environments of air conditioned offices or clean automated factory floors does not make it any less.
[Of course, many men still work in physically challenging environments as well. My point was not to dismiss the seemingly "soft" modern environments as less competitive or, in their own way, brutal.]
Gents,
off topic but very important. This is a video of Erin Pizzy speaking out on the behalf of BOTH genders. She also links the womens movement to the communists etc. Please post far and wide.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Vux-_9yRY
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiWqRFfg6w
Nothing says get rich fast like a Women’s health issue.
Some group is getting wealthy off women
February is National National Awareness Month Awareness Month
a few from
amused.easilyamused.org
January
* Cervical Cancer Awareness Month
* National Stalking Awareness Month
* White Male Oppression Awareness Month
MARCH
* Vulval Health Awareness Month (and you thought they didn’t care)
April
* Child Abuse Awareness Month
* Math Awareness Month
* National Cancer Control Month
* National STD Awareness Month
* Rabies Awareness Month
* Sexual Assault Awareness Month
MAY
* National Victims of Pornography Awareness Month
* Women’s Health Month
Lest we forget every month is Women are Victims Month.
Fuck wimmins health. They have always lived longer than men yet men are being compromised on health spending…nice way to make sure we die earlier.
A little while ago Jane McGrath, the wife of a famous Australian cricketer, died of breast cancer. She had set up breast cancer clinics in Australia. Now I don’t know Jane McGrath from a bar of soap. She was probably a lovely woman and Glenn is the kindest gentlest man you could meet as long as you were not an opposing batsman. She wants to set up a foundation for females only that’s HER business. It’s sexist and dicriminatory but she is entitled to spend her effort where she likes.
Compare her to someone with real class. After all, did Lance Armstrong set up a foundation ONLY for men who have testicular cancer or was he a bit more inclusive? Of course he was more inclusive. He’s a man. He has class. Jane McGrath was a woman and thereby, by definiton, can not have the class of a man. Women don’t like me saying that? Then stop being so sexist.
What pissed me off was that Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull(leader of the opposition) fell all over themselves giving her eulogies in parliament house. I put a post onto the SMH asking ‘did not an Austalian digger die who was more deserving of this eulogy’? Such eulogies are NEVER done in Australia yet they pick a person to eulogise who was openly sexist and proud of it and did fuck all compared to a soldier, a policeman, a fireman or any other of the many MEN who die in the line of duty. She died from a disease. These men die because they put themselves in harms way for the benefit of others.
So I say FUCK wimmins health. Until western wimmen start showing a bit more class like Erin Pizzy why should I care if they live or die? When women are so sexist as to praise the eulogy of Jane McGrath and totally overlook the sacrifice that so many men have made? I for one am not paying any taxes to pay for wimmins health and nor should any other man. Wimmins health is so important congress women want to send men home so they can get the vote passed? Let them pay for themselves. Same for ’single mothers’. Let the women pay for themselves.
crella February 5, 2010 at 03:47
“This doesn’t DO anything!”
You are so ignorant. In case you have not noticed wimmins health spend is vastly more than mens health spend in every western country. At the auto teller I go to at tesco here in the UK they proudly proclaim how they donate money for breast cancer research. wimmins health is a tax on men to further impoverish men and the proceeds are given carte blanche to women. It does LOTS. Increases taxes on men.
I was in a shop the other day and asked for a bottle of water. The one they handed me had a pink top. I asked the girl why it had a pink top and she said that 1 cent would be ‘donated’ to breast cancer research. I told her to take it back and give me one with a blue top because I refuse to find wimmins health while they say they can lie in court with impunity. The girl was very put out about facing the truth but sold me the ‘non-wimmins-health’ bottle of water.
By the way. Breast cancer is brought to you by the same scumbags that are giving you the ‘babies and money’ from divorce. Early in the vaccination programs for smallpox doctors noticed that the ONLY people who got cancer were people who had been vaccinated for smallpox. There is no ‘conclusive proof’ but anyone who goes and looks into the vaccination program can see that it is the driving cause of cancer. Dogs and cats vaccination reportedly have high rates of cancer in the limbs vaccinated. “Wimmins health” and the massive support it gets is a scam to oppress men by having them die earlier. Period.
What a great story, Globalman. You will literally not even give a cent to the wimminz. I love a man with balls, and you have a pair of stones my friend. Keep up the good work.
Zeta February 5, 2010 at 09:51
“What a great story, Globalman. You will literally not even give a cent to the wimminz. ”
Yeah Zeta, the western wimminz and go fuck themselves with their vibrators and play with their cats.
I do spend money on eastern women and I am happy to do so. They treat me very nicely. 40 years of the crap of western women has shown them up for the liars and hypocrites they are….B&G being a great example of such a liar and a hypocrite…..you see her and some other wimminz effort to form a little group and bad mouth me? LOL! Wimminz bad mouthing a man? What hypocrisy.
Globalman,
From what I can tell, Glenn is the one setting up the foundation for Jane. So the husband is doing it.
Wasim Akram’s wife also died recently. But that is Pakistan. No one has foundations for their wives in Pakistan (although Imran Khan did a hospital devoted to his mother).
Yes men are at significantly higher risk of heart disease than men. However as obesity and diabetes and smoking amongst women has increased, so has the risk of heart disease in women. Women may still believe that they are not at risk when they are.
Men in thier forties know that if they have chest pains that they have to take a couple aspirin and get to a hospital immediately. Women in thier forties and their doctors tend to dismiss chest pain as acid reflux or anxiety. As a result, by the time the heart attack is diagnosed the damage is already done.
The campaign trying to inform women of the risk so that if they do have a heart attack that they recognise the signs and they get treatment. That does not make it anti-man.
Yea same here. I’ve been with an asian woman for 5 years now and there is no way I would ever be with an NA woman ever again. If I was guaranteed 10 million dollars just to marry an NA woman I would decline. The funny thing is, I’ve never really been hurt by NA women except for the one that cheated which I expected. I just lost 100% interest in them around 15 years ago. I realize women can be the same everywhere but what I have found over the years with asian women is that you always get an incredible return for what you invest into the relationship. You actually get something back. They are also incredibly family oriented so if anyone is anxious to have the family life I would strongly suggest this route. With the usual caution of course.
The Fifth Horseman February 5, 2010 at 12:08
“From what I can tell, Glenn is the one setting up the foundation for Jane. So the husband is doing it. ”
He may be running it now but there was great ho-ha in Australia over it all. Don’t get me wrong I am not criticising Jane McGrath in any way, shape or form. She had a choice as to what she would do. The same way I will not assist western women she chose not to assist western men.
What I am pointing to is the hypocrisy of our politicians and of western women in lauding her ‘achievements’ in the parliament. An honour almost never accorded a man despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of men more deserving of such accolades than Jane McGrath.
The first time I noticed something was really wrong with Australian women was when Nicole Kidman was nominated for ‘Australian of the Year’ the same year that Steve Waugh was nominated. What? A bad actress who insisted she was ‘entitled’ to USD60M for the fucking HARDSHIP of being married to Tom Cruise for 10 years? I was saying to women then. If this is the best woman you can put forward as an example of an Australian woman you are in real trouble.
Some time later I commented to an aunty of mine that Nicole Kidmann was complete crap for taking USD60M in divorce. Her comment was ‘he can afford it’. I asked her in response whether she believed that a womans ‘entitlement’ was merely based on what a man could afford versus what she had contributed and was worth. She answered when it comes to a husband it’s what he can afford. She in in her 60s.
This is why there is no point thinking there are any ‘good women’ out there to actually date or marry. They are ALL crap (western women). And if they are not crap now they will be because they simply can not resist the brainwashing going on. Nicole Kidman? In the same league as Steve Waugh? Give me a fucking break. She’s not good enough to clearn his cricket boots.
One could argue that Nicole and Tom had signed a contract to be husband and wife until one of them died. Tom wanted out of that contract, apparently Nicole did not. It is not whether Tom could afford 60 million dollars, but how much he was willing to pay to terminate the contract.
I’m gonna argue that your lunch hour is over, so get back to work and stop abusing my tax dollars.
This is why there is no point thinking there are any ‘good women’ out there to actually date or marry. They are ALL crap (western women).
—————————————————————
I do not think it was ever easy to deal with women in general, but beautiful women have pretty much always been a pain to deal with.
You are a nosey little man arent you. Always getting into other people’s business.
Back to work, you deadbeat.
Get a job slacker
Lol! I provide for myself quite fine, thank you very much – would be even better if I didn’t have to pay taxes so slackers like you could have a cush job.
I doubt it, only an unemployed bumb would have so much invested in what other people post on a public forum.
Nobody that we care about here cares about you so shut the fuck up!
Like we need an explanation on why western women are self centered & narcissistic retards.
I did not realise what cry babies western men were.
She wrote something I did not like make her go away, she’s so mean.
When I find out where you work, I’m gonna get you fired.
I doubt a gainfully employed man would bother.
Lol! Do you think you are actually shaming me? How wrong you are. I take great pleasure in providing for myself, being my own boss, and paying as little taxes as possible. Anything to starve the government teat that little leaches like you suck off of.
And you’ve wasted a half an hour of wages arguing on a non-work related forum.
Better watch what you say, because I will find out where you work sooner or later.
canadian girl February 5, 2010 at 13:22
Woman bleeting….move along gentlemen, nothing to see here.
canadian girl February 5, 2010 at 12:57
“One could argue that Nicole and Tom had signed a contract to be husband and wife until one of them died. Tom wanted out of that contract,”
So all those WOMEN, you know, the 70-90% of them who want OUT of THEIR contract should pay the man substantial fees? You know, if women are ‘equal’ and all. Western women are toxic. CG is just one more example of their pitiful lack of reasoning.
By the way. As far as I am aware neither has publicly stated who wanted out for what reasons. There are plenty of rumours about.
Hey Fedrz,
What is worse is that this probably is her job.
Something like Associate Assistant Undersecretary in the Office of Women Getting Their Panties in a Bunch within the Ministry of Stomping Their Little Feet When They Don’t Get Their Way.
The government needs to find something for the liberal art majors to do that won’t get too much in the way.
They likely have a once-per-year Parliamentary committee hearing; followed ,of course, by a whine and cheese reception.
What I am pointing to is the hypocrisy of our politicians and of western women in lauding her ‘achievements’ in the parliament.
That’s true. Look at Princess Diana.
In both cases, they married a man who struck it big. They did some ‘charitable’ work so that they can look smart and noble, rather than just superficial jetsetters. It is also a tax-shielding vehicle for the husband’s earnings (that I favor, of course).
But yes, the gyno-centric Anglosphere is prone to overrating a woman’s ‘achievements’. You won’t see such a overrating of Wasim Akram’s dead wife (who actually was a trained and practicing psychologist), given their Islamic moral code.
Imran Khan was smart. He married a wealthy British woman 21 years younger than him, got her to CONVERT to Islam, had 2 sons, and then divorced her under Islamic laws, thus not paying any alimony. And this was a man who was a legendary PUA in London as a single guy, not choosing to live in Pakistan at all. His charitable work is in the name of his deceased MOTHER, not some ditz.
He gets it.
His ex-wife now is with Hugh Grant (a legendary sucker, who seems to be a happy supporter of two half-Pakistani kids who are not his).
Oh, I forgot to add that Jemima Goldsmith still keeps Imran Khan’s last name. Even after the divorce. A Jewish woman keeping an Islamic last name after divorce.
So Imran Khan has effectively cuckolded Hugh Grant.
You can’t possibly be defending Tom Cruise on this one! He left her and their children while she was pregnant, right before their 10th wedding anniversary. She then miscarried one month after he walked out on her. He’s a creep and serial adulterer.
Your usual charming self today. I said that dressing up in red, and telling people your bra color on Facebook does nothing, and I think it’s a self-serving feel-good exercise. What changes if I type in ‘white’ or ‘purple’ in my Facebook status page? Nothing, but women are getting a buzz from it.
Breast cancer awareness, the pink ribbon bit, was well-organized from the start, bringing in major fashion houses and retailers. Another such campaign would be wonderful for prostate cancer.
what’s a little number fudging among like minded male bashers.
And this demographic seems to need all the help they can get. The health care professionals would love to play these people because of all the money that is not theirs will be dished out to the money grubbing insurance co’s and the middle men – I like that term – that will gladly take their $$.
I see it as an economic recovery on the backs of women. What could be better ?
It dawns on me that it would be better if they actually spent their OWN money, rather that some unsuspecting male.
I see it all the time. Women’s this, women’s that – I’m basically turning off the channel nao.
@ B & G:
California has a rule that after ten years of marriage, a spouse may demand alimony for life.
If a 40-year-old woman lives to be 80 and her ex-husband lives as long as she does, that’s 40 YEARS of alimony for ten years of marriage.
Do you understand now why a prudent man might decide that he will automatically divorce a woman just before the magic ten year anniversary?
Women don’t seem to understand that when they change the rules of the game, men will eventually figure out a way around them.
In the UK, it’s now routine for lawyers to advise any male clients with even modest amounts of money that marriage is inadvisable. The laws are so bad over there that lawyers fear being sued for negligence if they don’t warn the potential grooms to stay away from the altar.
In Australia, they were going to implement a rule that long-term cohabitees (men and women living together) were effectively married after a certain period of time. Men promptly started kicking women out of their houses and apartments as a pre-emptive measure.
If you punish virtue and reward vice, you will reap a meager harvest of virtue and a bumper crop of vice.
Many western men have already discovered that western women are a waste of air. Worthless! A pain in the ass is the only thing they are good for.
canadian’girl’ isn’t serious about discussing anything, her replies say it all. Like a little kid, just posting anything she thinks will get your goat. Can’t see that it’s not that she ‘wrote something somebody didn’t like’ but her overall tone and lack of anything of substance to say.
Yes it does. It provides employment for activists who would otherwise have to seek employment in the productive sectors of society. This is true of most nonprofits.
There are a lot of women that do that here. Any position a man takes, they take the opposite position for no other reason than to be a pain in the ass. You can tell this is the case because they come to the debate with no argument, no reason for taking the position that they have, and constantly hop from one issue to the next in an attempt to divert attention away from themselves and their lack of an argument.
It’s as obvious as my penis-having ass at a Take Back The Night rally, you’d think they’d feel a little bit of shame about it,but it doesn’t seem like they realize that everyone here sees through them.
Do you understand now why a prudent man might decide that he will automatically divorce a woman just before the magic ten year anniversary?
I understand about the injustice of the alimony situation. My point is that the guy is a complete dirtbag, who ran out on his family to go chase Penelope Cruz.
If he was planning on divorcing her, why didn’t he do it before he made her pregnant and adopted 2 children? Once you drag kids into the deal it’s a whole different story. Running out on your pregnant wife? That’s really crummy.
These kind of stories are the wrong ones to hold up to point out the injustice of the alimony laws. Those men are not going to draw much sympathy from the general population, me included.
The likeability of the men that alimony laws harm is completely irrelevant to their level of injustice.
Did they finalize it? As I recall Britain has implemented that rule.
It used to be women could only demand support for children born of marriage, not out of wedlock children. With the ongoing destruction of the institution of marriage, men were refusing to marry. That wasn’t to women’s desires, so we implemented child support laws to give women a traditional benefit of marriage without having to convince a man to take the plunge.
There was something missing, though. If a man is going to be stuck with child support no matter what he does, at least he can protect his assets from a divorce decree by cohabiting instead. That also wasn’t to women’s liking, so we make cohabiting women eligible for a piece of a man’s assets, another traditional benefit of marriage.
What financial benefits are left for women to take?
Sadly, even death is no bar to women’s designs, what with courts giving women the right to collect sperm from their dead boyfriends, making the kids his heirs and thus eligible for part of all of his estate.
Why not give up the pretense and directly tax men for the benefit of women? It wouldn’t be right, but at least it would be honest.
Well, you know that, and I know that.
But holding up Tom Cruise as an example of the injustice of alimony laws is like holding up Tiger Woods as an example of the injustice of domestic violence laws. Yes, they’ve both been treated unjustly, as justice should be blind. But there are much better examples out there, to stir people’s sympathy. Neither of them make very good candidates.
Do you think feminists hold up prostitutes when discussing rape laws? Probably not. They find a pretty college student from a nice family, or a successful business woman who was attacked while jogging in a park.
“Do you think feminists hold up prostitutes when discussing rape laws?”
Um, yes. That’s why they push for sexual history to be thrown out of court in rape cases. That’s why they raped the reputations of Duke students taken advantage of by a black stripper.
Feminists sense of “justice” is black and white – or pecker and hooha. If a woman is involved in any situation with a man, the man is automatically at fault. And that’s exactly what they – and you – are doing when they excuse the evil actions of women like Nicole Kidman, Elin Nordegren, Steve McNair’s murderer, and every woman who commits domestic violence against a man and then blames it on him for causing emotional distress, every woman who lies about rape, and every man and every woman who claims that domestic violence should include things which are not violence at all like verbal scolding and “financial torture” or whatever they call it when you don’t give enough of your hard-earned money to your leech of a wife.
Trust me, anyone I might hold up as a victim of women’s entitlement and associated misandry will be lambasted by feminists, the media, and the vast majority of society who enable and support it all through indifference. And that includes you and everyone else who says “he deserved it”.
This is exactly what I’m talking about:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4555
You will never find a story where a woman victimizes a man and the man is NOT blamed.
One wonders what moral considerations justify giving a woman worth many tens of millions of USD, and whose future expected income is in the millions of USD annually, any of her ex-husband’s property, let alone US$60M.
The likeability of the men that alimony laws harm is completely irrelevant to their level of injustice.
Not for women. Women’s entire sense of right and wrong is governed by whether they like the man or not.
Look at how they excuse Roman Polanski, Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards.
The status of the accused determines his guilt. His actions do not. That is how women think.
Women don’t seem to understand that when they change the rules of the game, men will eventually figure out a way around them.
As I said earlier, women lack the capacity to grasp cause and effect. Remember that, and see examples that confirm this reality.
I know next to nothing about Tom Cruise, I’ve never been interested all that much, but I was following the Tiger Woods story for the few days it was on the Japanese news.
Despite the fact that he cheated, I do not think that beating him with a golf club was justified at all. It seems that many women do. It’s blatantly hypocritical. Stories of men being mutilated or killed while they slept invariably are followed by reader comments along the lines of ’she must have snapped’ ‘I wonder what he did to deserve it’ . Deserve it? Since when are we allowed to take the law into our own hands, becoming judge , jury and executioner? I’ve read reports that Woods needed surgery to repair facial damage and broken teeth. Do that to a woman and watch the fur fly, cheater or not. Why shouldn’t Wood’s case be an example of how biased domestic violence law is?
Nemo February 5, 2010 at 15:50
“In Australia, they were going to implement a rule that long-term cohabitees (men and women living together) were effectively married after a certain period of time. Men promptly started kicking women out of their houses and apartments as a pre-emptive measure.”
Yes, this happened in the 80s. Today in Australia legislation was just enacted such that the co-habitation requirement was removed and all that is necessary is an allegation of a relationship for a woman to gain the ‘rights’ of a ‘wife’. Any many left in Australia is a complete idiot.
It’s starting to get ridiculous, but again, MEN are ALWAYS to blame: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ayu70/jury_right_to_give_father_part_of_the_blame_in/
B&G,
I think you missed this bit “Nicole recently revealed”. This goes right next to her endless comments about “I will never talk about what happened”. Nicole Kidman is just like every other woman. An attention whore and a liar. Please do not forget that she is the #1 Illuminati stooge for ‘zero tolerance to violence against women and children’ on behalf of the UN.
As for supporting TOM in the situation? So when a woman exercises her ‘right’ to break her vows and destroy her family that’s ok. But when a MAN does it, it’s not. Ok. I got it. You’re a hypocrite B&G. Plain and simple.
“who ran out on his family to go chase Penelope Cruz.”
So..when he ‘runs out’ it’s HIS family and when she demands child support it is HER family. Ok. Got it. Thanks for the explaination.
The bottom line is this. Tom Cruise took her from obscurity (really, giving her a part as a brain surgeon?) and helped her as much as he could even doing some bad Irish movie I couldn’t stand and ‘eyes wide shut’. He gave her a lifestyle and opportunities that were beyond her wildest imagination. He also, personally and with great energy, pushed for movie making in Australia again. Movies such as the Matrix and Mission Impossible II were made in Sydney creating thousands of jobs. In a massive hailstorm when many peoples rooves were torn off Tom, out of his own pocket, bought tarpaulins and was up on peoples roofs helping them cover their broken tile. His comments were ‘it’s just the right thing to do’. Does he womanise? Hopefully he does. No man should limit himself to one woman because women don’t appreciate, value or respect monogomy any more.
For all this SHE claims she is ‘entitled’ to USD60M! I have often said I would be married to Tom Cruise for a eyar for USD6M! It can’t be that bad.
Jay Hammers February 6, 2010 at 11:29
“It’s starting to get ridiculous”
Jay, it was ridiculous a long arsed time ago my friend.
Yes, this happened in the 80s. Today in Australia legislation was just enacted such that the co-habitation requirement was removed and all that is necessary is an allegation of a relationship for a woman to gain the ‘rights’ of a ‘wife
——————————-
d0 you have the links to this?
“People like Harry say that there is a men’s rights movement, but somehow he is actually proud that there is no visible evidence of their efforts.”
Pardon?
“… somehow he is actually proud that there is no visible evidence of their efforts.”
LIAR
In every age category men die at much higher rates than females from heart disease. Even in the 80’s more men die from heart disease than females. However, by the 80’s the average man has been dead for 10 years(most likely from heart disease) lol And let’s stop catering to what a bunch of old useless females want. Old females are of no use to men and are a tremendous expense and annoyance. Let them pay for their own medical expenses from the money left to them by some poor husband who died years ago probably from heart failure working for them.In the past, the average old person was usually at the bottom economically. That’s not true today, they are at the top and have many government benefits that the young do not have. Even the very poorest old person gets SS, sec 8or something similar to pay most of their rent in any apt they find, free or almost free utilities, free medical care and free drugs, hearing aides, glasses, scooters and anything else you can imagine(many have both Medicare and Medicaid), free cabs to the doctor, and the list goes on and on. So why are we so concerned with heart disease in old women? It was the men who died from heart disease working and never living long enough to collect any benefits that is paying for old useless females. If men lived as long the system would go bankrupt. Many of these old females are collecting under their husbands benefits anyway since they never paid in enough or worked long enough to qualify on their own.
“In Australia, they were going to implement a rule that long-term cohabitees (men and women living together) were effectively married after a certain period of time.”
It’s been updated. You are now effectively married after an UNCERTAIN period of time – “Victoria Relationships Act (2008)”
To be precise, there is now no time requirement. Length of relationship is one factor that a court will take into account when determining whether a “de facto relationship” exists, but there is no theoretical minimum period.
Also, there isn’t a strict requirement for co-habitation. You can be considered to have a “shared life together” if you maintain separate residences, but regularly spend the night together in the same place (his apartment alternating with her apartment).
The factors establishing a “shared life” are:
Financial support and mingling of finances
Behaving as a couple in public life
Sacrifice of career etc.
Length of relationship
Mutual support
Cohabitation
Children together.
…but none of these is essential. You just need to pick a couple from the menu.
How long is a piece of string?
In theory, you could establish a defacto relationship in as little as 3 months – if you asked a girl to quit her job, leave her home town and move in with you and promised to support her financially.
If you maintained separate residences and kept finances separate, you’d probably need at least 18 months.
Nobody really knows how the courts will interpret things in the future – the above is based on the current situation.
I don’t expect they will ever broaden the net to include 3 month flings without cohabitation.
The trend seems to be to push men towards casual hookups and prostitution (which is legal and licensed here).
To be precise, there is now no time requirement. Length of relationship is one factor that a court will take into account when determining whether a “de facto relationship” exists, but there is no theoretical minimum period.
_____________________________________
this is absolutely insane.
Try this.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/new-laws-give-mistresses-de-facto-rights-20090301-8l4m.html
Epoche* February 6, 2010 at 17:37
“this is absolutely insane.”
Not if you are trying to make women so horrible no man would touch one it’s not…and THAT is the agenda.
The #1 agenda is depopulation. And these ‘laws’ masquerading as ’statutes’ are exactly in line with that agenda.
Bu the way. Despite the fact that this new set of ‘Family Law’ represented the largest every legalised ‘wealth transfer’ from men to women to ever occur in Australian history there were about half a dozen short articles like this one written about it. Even most MRAs in Australia don’t know this happened.
In fact, most MRAs in Australia are willfully ignorant or subverted. They simply will not listen to the fact that common law exists and the jurisdiction of the courts can be denied.
Wow, Australia really is fucked.
So those guys who passed that shit in the senate are really about to start getting fucked by mistresses eh
So I guess this does mean that you can do anything you want to most people and they will just take it.
If population reduction was what the top people wanted I am pretty sure they could just drag millions away to be shot in the head without really having to sugarcoat it so much.
I think the goal more likely is to torture people like a child playing with ants. Once your that rich and have done it all. What is the next step being amazed at just how low you can get people to go.
If population reduction was what the top people wanted I am pretty sure they could just drag millions away to be shot in the head without really having to sugarcoat it so much.
They have to get people to love their servitude. So they have to get people to die willingly or to die from a ‘disease’ so that they never figure out who is actually killing them. It’s not ’sugar coating’ it is a necessary deception.
Look at the stats as to how many people they have organised to kill. And still we keep breeding too fast for their liking. So no. They can’t just take people out and shoot them, they need the deception to retain control.
Yes fedz,
people seem to forget the 200M or so people killed last century in wars…but that pales into INSIGNIFICANCE with the estimated 2 BILLION babies aborted.
About 40 years ago the saying was ‘every baby is a precious gift from god’ and women carried babies to term and they were adopted out to people who in the vast majority gave the child a loving home.
In less than 40 years an unborn baby has gone from ‘precious gift from god’ to be afforded the maximum protection of society as it’s most vulnerable member to, quite literally, being thrown in the trash.
And it is no co-incidence that the group who championed the change of status of a human baby from ‘precious’ to ‘trash’ was ‘wimmin’.
Women can be brainwashed into ANYTHING and pretty easily so.
If anyone thinks that 2B viable humans were killed by ‘accident’ and there is not a depopulation program running? I have bridge to sell you.