July 29, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

May 22, 2007, Dads on the Air interviewed Erin Pizzey

Excerpt:

Peter van de Voorde:	Are you generalising by saying that, because surely it must be just the radical feminists who are like that. You’re saying that the feminist movement as a whole…?
Erin Pizzey:	…is evil?
Peter van de Voorde:	is evil.
Erin Pizzey:	Yes. Because the entire concept is evil. Any movement that sets out to hate as the feminist movement does… I mean even down to the woman in the street who will say, “I’m a feminist”, what does she actually mean? She means she’s derogatory about men.

(Full Transcript of Interview) 

Posted in Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

July 14, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Today I rewrote the introduction to Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like? Here is the result.

The vast majority of the definitions contained in that web page illustrate the products of roughly 40 years of heavy, intensive social engineering promoted by women’s studies programs. Those study programs are being taught by lecturers that consider themselves, and even often openly declare themselves, to be Marxist in their ideology, the ideology they promote and that drives them.

Marxism is a euphemism for communism. Karl Marx co-authored with Frederic Engels in Dec. 1847 - Jan. 1848 the Manifesto of the Communist Party (a.k.a. the Communist Manifesto).

It is recommended that anyone who finds claims of the close ideological connection and ties between communism and feminism a hard pill to swallow better read the Communist Manifesto but also other writings by Marx and Engels. He will then have no problem realizing that feminism, especially radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist feminism) is nothing more than communism transformed, communism in drag.

Many of the terms used by feminists come straight from communist dialectics, and many of the slogans and ideas promoted by women’s studies lecturers are being quoted almost verbatim, and in many cases are exact quotes, from communist text books.

The feminist doctrine of women’s victimhood is the major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women’s issues. That imbalance in attention given to women’s issues existed for at least the last 200 years of modern history, but it received an enormous boost through the activities of the radical feminist activists that made their appearance in the mid-1960s.

Men’s rights will not be given an amount of public concerns equal to that given to women’s issues until at the very least an equal amount of concern is given to men’s studies as is given to women’s studies.

The following statistics compiled from search results using http://google.com illustrate how far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking, the media and all of society:

The encouraging trend reflected in the statistics shown above is that, while the interest in women’s studies is on the decline and fell by 90 percent during the 2006-2007 interval, the interest in men’s studies has not seen a comparable increase in attention given. Moreover, when one examines the search returns for men’s studies programs it appears that those programs are permeated with a strong pro-homosexual bias by new-age men (a product of ongoing feminist indoctrination). It appears hardly possible that pro-homosexual activists acting on behalf of a population sector that comprises no more than about two percent of the adult male population will either have the interest or the necessary influence to revert the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family and the vital role of the father in it.

Far more than enough resources are being used up to assist the feminists in their search for problems befitting the solutions they devised. No wonder men are being made the scapegoats for every imaginable social ill. As the statistics in the preceding table show, men don’t talk back much. After all, scapegoats don’t talk.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary, feminists found and assert that: 1.) all women are victims, and 2.) the perfect shoulders to put the blame on are those of men. Many men, affected as much by our feminist-dominated education system as women are, bought into those assertions. As a result of that, women gained many and enormously important concessions by society and politicians for which they had to give absolutely nothing in return, while men, as always, have to foot the bill for those concessions.

However, what is it that the feminists really want? Maybe someone can figure out whether the complete re-engineering of society was worth the effort just to pursue the wildly aimless chase after Paradise on Earth for feminists. Can anyone connect the dots, are there any dots to connect? Other than indulging themselves in the urge to deconstruct society and to get all of society to support them in that effort, what is it that the feminists really want? Can you figure it out from the definitions provided here?

Posted in Education, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »