Parrotte .net .com .org

Patriarchy for Dummies
By Paul Elam | Source | July 24, 2010
If you have followed the ongoing volumes of discussion in the gender war, you are familiar with a constantly regurgitated bit of feminist claptrap.
Feminism isn’t anti-male, it is anti-patriarchal and of course, it‘s about equality.
Sure it is.
We should consider, though, that in their constant attempt to reshape reality to fit the needs of the moment, there is a dirty little secret that feminists continually keep from themselves. Well, one among many. This one is called reproductive strategy. And without understanding that, you can’t understand why and how we developed a patriarchal system.
It is really simple. Men are wired to do whatever it takes to be selected by women for mating. Women are wired to select men that are dominant and aggressive, e.g. patriarchal.
Do I need to say that again?
Do you ever wonder why men like Scott Peterson show up at death row with a stack of marriage proposals waiting for them? That’s what happened, and the proposals came from women who only knew one thing about him: He savagely murdered his wife, cutting his own baby from her abdomen and dumped them both out of a boat into the bay.
How is that for marriage material?
It isn’t any different with Joran van der Sloot. After skating on the Holloway murder, van der Sloot became a sexual celebrity. Everywhere he went, young women in their sexual prime threw themselves at him like he was Mick Jagger.
Something about the missing body of a young girl and his fingerprints all over the case acted like Spanish Fly on these women.
Of course, he killed again. And of course, his marriage proposals started rolling in as well.
Here, by the way, is the video of Joran and his last victim, Stephany Flores, checking into the hotel room in Lima, Peru, where he would kill her. Watch it closely.

Did you get the way she followed him like an obedient dog? Note the two steps behind and head bowed like a Geisha body language. It is the age old false female submission to male authority, killer authority, in order to have access and eventual control of that power. It is the same type of power that has been making women wet and tingly since the prehistoric plains of the African savanna.
Are the women gone ga ga for Peterson and van der Sloot the exceptions to the rule?
No.
What they are is more extreme examples of the norm. Everyone eats, and in every culture there is a certain percentage of people that eat to the point of obesity. It doesn’t make eating abnormal, it just points to some abnormal eating. These women are the same type of phenomena.
They are attracted to killers for the same reasons that the average young woman is attracted to thugs, bad boys on motorcycles, rock stars and politicians as ugly as Henry Kissinger. It is all about power. Power to protect, power to provide, power to dominate and control.
Power to be corralled and used.
When all that power gets channeled into a box and served up on a platter for women’s benefit, you have the ultimate aphrodisiac. There’s your patriarchy in a nutshell, and all the laws, codes, social norms and gender roles that came with it. Women use the illusion of submission and being demure, coupled with sexual appeal, to get men to perform for their benefit.
Ultimately the master is the slave. He lives under the illusion of power, when in reality he is only the provider of it.
And this of course explains why feminism has not resulted in equality, but only more privilege for women. Feminism only takes what is already there, the female drive to benefit from the power acquired by men, power that almost all women are incapable of gaining on their own, and takes it to the extreme level. In that light, feminism is an extreme that showed up in normal sexual life, just like a letter bearing a marriage proposal on death row.
And as always of course, the chief enablers of all this are men jockeying for sexual approval/selection.
As I have said before, take it up with God or Darwin as you please, but don’t blame me for telling the truth.
But that truth, in these modern times, presents a unique dilemma for men, at least the ones that have pulled their heads out and started to read the writing on the wall.
The acquisition of all the power needed to attract women brought with it a rather unfortunate consequence.
Disposabilty.
Pulling 12 hours in a coal mine with trembling walls and death in the air you breathe is a high price to enable a woman to remain at home taking care of children, especially in an age where that kind of life is absolutely unnecessary.
If you are fortunate enough to be alpha material, you get to own or run the coal mine, have men do the digging for you and perhaps even have some of their wives yield to the tingle you give them while hubby is down in the depths doing what a man has to do.
But this is really where we run into a wall that is unscaleable in the movement toward this incredulous thing called “sexual equality.”
The minute that man takes a real look at what he is doing and decides less money is a better option, then that is where hypergamy kicks in to overdrive with the wife and he loses her.
The very moment he values his safety and quality of life more than he values her standard of living, the clock starts on her departure.
Without playing by the same rules that gave us patriarchy, there is no real connection between men and women. The men who undermine patriarchy in the only real way it can be undermined, by refusing to take care of women, are automatically reduced to the status of loser and placed on the sexual sidelines.
The only answer to this is to open the door for women on the way out, and perhaps give them a little shove as they go. It’s the feminist equalitarian thing to do, after all. These men should be lionized by Steinem, et al, because it frees women from all the “oppressive” patriarchy that comes with marriage (which they will then, invariably, look to get from some other man) and it allows the man, at least in the case of a coal miner, to add a decade or so to his life span and perhaps enjoy it a little more.
If feminism were about being either anti patriarchy or pro equality, the only focus it would have had would be on challenging women to quit picking the most powerful provider that they can and using them to live as close to the state of royalty as possible.
It would have also told women to put down books and pick up shovels.
Instead, what we have is women dominating the work force in the most cushy jobs available, many of them low paying, while men still bear the brunt of often fatal occupational hazards so they can make enough money to be an attractive provider. Whatever financial gaps result in this for women, they simply use The State, that ultimate expression of patriarchy, to fill in.
And do you think these under employed women are more prone to marrying down than any other woman?
Let‘s be real here, all feminism has done is give women a new place to kick back and take it easy while men ante up the blood, sweat and tears. And it leaves their supposedly lamented patriarchy safe and completely intact, ready to do their bidding in any way they want.
Same as it ever was.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
—————————————————————————————————————————————

Housewives, Prostitutes and Beggars
By Housewives, Prostitutes and Beggars
By Men’s Activism News | Source | July 24, 2010
Undoubtedly, you’ll get a good laugh from this. Excerpt:

‘I recently participated in a TV discussion on why prostitution is on the rise in the country. I shared the panel with a closet feminist and a radical feminist, both of whom were of the opinion that prostitution was better than marriage since the house is unsafe for a woman, and she would at least get paid for her services if she were a prostitute.
I returned home thinking about their wise utterances and went to bed discussing the same with my husband.
I said, “For decades, feminists have claimed that one out of three women is unsafe in her own house. They have told us horrendous tales about how it was daily grind for men in the country to abuse, assault, set afire and murder their wives. They lobbied for laws which would facilitate a woman breaking her shackles and barging out of the “tyrannical household” or throwing her alleged oppressors out, whichever is convenient. They ensured that every woman who had a problem “clearly understood” that all her problems were because of men, marriage and the household.”
…
All of a sudden my husband had an epiphany and said, “A WHOREHOUSE!”
“YES,” I agreed, “This is brilliant! It is neither the house nor the street. It is something in between – the utopia that my feminist friends on TV spoke so highly of. They have to be right. That’s where they think our women would be safest, well paid and properly fed, and that’s why prostitution, with the more fashionable label of ‘commercial sex’, is on the rise.”
…
While I was still marvelling at this astounding progress, I saw a news item which said that the recent Government Census clubbed housewives, prostitutes and beggars into a group. What a timely gesture by the Government!
…
Feminists have not only taught women to shun all the age-old encumbrances imposed by marriage and family but also to shed all inhibitions associated with parasitic living. Accordingly, there is no trace of shame in these modern liberated women, but it is with a sense of pride and entitlement that they artfully exact money, thus claiming their rightful inclusion by the Government in the club.
The feminists reduced housewives into prostitutes and beggars long ago. The Government has just made it official by grouping them in the Census.
Why, then, is the Supreme Court cross about it? Beats me!’ | Source | July 24, 2010
Undoubtedly, you’ll get a good laugh from this. Excerpt:
‘I recently participated in a TV discussion on why prostitution is on the rise in the country. I shared the panel with a closet feminist and a radical feminist, both of whom were of the opinion that prostitution was better than marriage since the house is unsafe for a woman, and she would at least get paid for her services if she were a prostitute.
I returned home thinking about their wise utterances and went to bed discussing the same with my husband.
I said, “For decades, feminists have claimed that one out of three women is unsafe in her own house. They have told us horrendous tales about how it was daily grind for men in the country to abuse, assault, set afire and murder their wives. They lobbied for laws which would facilitate a woman breaking her shackles and barging out of the “tyrannical household” or throwing her alleged oppressors out, whichever is convenient. They ensured that every woman who had a problem “clearly understood” that all her problems were because of men, marriage and the household.”
…
All of a sudden my husband had an epiphany and said, “A WHOREHOUSE!”

“YES,” I agreed, “This is brilliant! It is neither the house nor the street. It is something in between – the utopia that my feminist friends on TV spoke so highly of. They have to be right. That’s where they think our women would be safest, well paid and properly fed, and that’s why prostitution, with the more fashionable label of ‘commercial sex’, is on the rise.”
…
While I was still marvelling at this astounding progress, I saw a news item which said that the recent Government Census clubbed housewives, prostitutes and beggars into a group. What a timely gesture by the Government!
…
Feminists have not only taught women to shun all the age-old encumbrances imposed by marriage and family but also to shed all inhibitions associated with parasitic living. Accordingly, there is no trace of shame in these modern liberated women, but it is with a sense of pride and entitlement that they artfully exact money, thus claiming their rightful inclusion by the Government in the club.
The feminists reduced housewives into prostitutes and beggars long ago. The Government has just made it official by grouping them in the Census.
Why, then, is the Supreme Court cross about it? Beats me!’